In an earlier post, I discussed the Code of Conduct of the Glasgow Worldcon. There have evidently been some changes since I wrote the article, perhaps in response to criticisms. My post quoted and criticized the following statement in the code: “In particular, exhibitors should not openly display sexualized images, activities, or other material, although this content may be kept out of sight and offered based on a customer’s inquiry, in keeping with the Indecent Display (Controls) Act 1981. Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment.”

That text isn’t currently present. Instead, there is this:

Everyone, including exhibitors, artists, and panellists, are legally required to comply with the Indecent Display (Controls) Act 1981 (IDCA) [gov.uk link]. The open display of sexualized images, activities, or other material is against the law, although this content may be kept out of sight and offered based on a customer’s inquiry, in keeping with the IDCA. In addition, Participants may not wear sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment.
 

This is not simply a convention rule, this is UK law.

Except it’s not. The legislation on that page uses the term “indecent,” not “sexualized.” While neither word seems to have a specific legal meaning, in ordinary usage “indecent” is much stronger. A picture of a woman in a bikini could be considered sexualized in many cases, but it wouldn’t be considered indecent this side of Saudi Arabia. Reading the law, I get the impression it uses the term as a rough equivalent to “porn.”

Let’s assume Glasgow is using “sexualized” to mean “pornographic” and that dealers are allowed to have porn under the table where people can request it. That runs into an inconsistency. “Pornography” is categorically prohibited without a written exception. It also runs into logistical issues; I assume we’re talking about dealers’ tables in an open hall, not a shop that can keep the hardcore stuff in a back room. Pulling something out from under the table might make it visible to anyone passing by, including minors. The law makes it clear that “indecent” material needs to be in a separate space marked by a conspicuous warning notice.

The code claims that a “sexualized environment” violates the law. In fact, the law under the link does not say anything about environments, whether you call them sexualized, indecent, or pornographic.

What’s the bottom line? If there’s a bimbo on the cover of your book, can she be on your table?

There are two ways this could go. Dealers could insist that since the policy references UK law, anything which isn’t “indecent” under the law isn’t “sexualized” under con policy and can be displayed. That seems reasonable to me, but I don’t think it’s what the concom intends. That interpretation implies that under-the-table porn might be OK, which would be a seriously bad idea.

The other possibility is that the concom continues to misread the law and prohibits display of anything sexualized in the ordinary sense of the word. Then dealers will have to keep most of their 1940s pulp magazines out of public view.

Or, as often happens with badly written rules, the interpretation will depend on who has it in for somebody and who has friends in the right places. Under the circumstances, I wouldn’t be put much hope in a fair interpretation. Someone might even call the bobbies (I think that’s what they’re called in Scotland) on a “sexualized” display and waste everyone’s time.

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, much less a solicitor or barrister. I’m just applying the best understanding I have to offer to the policy and the law.