Obscenity and the written word.
frederic bloggs, 17 Oct 2005 10:40:02
Having read the Nigel Meeks message on 2 arrests in America a thought occurred to me.
Here in Britain the written word alone cannot be deemed obscene (Lady Chatterly), I wonder has this been tested against or applied to the written word on the web rather than the printed word in book form?
Lothario, 17 Oct 2005 14:05:11
The law generally doesn't make distinctions between media.
The current proposals concern only images, not writing. While in
practice this will generally mean images that have been transmitted
across the Internet and stored/viewed on computers, it is not limited
to that. It would apply to traditional photography too, even if it
were pictures that someone had taken of their own activities at home
and had not intended or attempted to distribute in any way.
--
Lothario.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death my right
to stop you saying it." - Charles Clarke (attributed)
SnowdropExplodes, 17 Oct 2005 15:58:33
--- Lothario wrote:
> The law generally doesn't make distinctions between
> media.
>
> The current proposals concern only images, not
> writing. While in
> practice this will generally mean images that have
> been transmitted
> across the Internet and stored/viewed on computers,
> it is not limited
> to that. It would apply to traditional photography
> too, even if it
> were pictures that someone had taken of their own
> activities at home
> and had not intended or attempted to distribute in
> any way.
It is not impossible to imagine a married couple who
fantasise about one or other partner being tortured by
the other, but who are far too squeamish actually to
try any of the things they've read about on the
internet, nevertheless set about creating a realistic
depiction of such a scene, using carefully applied
theatrical make-up to simulate injuries and posing as
torturer/tortured while the delayed shutter-release
works, and thus creating images designed primarily for
sexual arousal - they then use their pictures to get
themselves in the mood a couple of times a week,
looking at them together and never showing them to
anyone else.
If the proposals go through, this couple would then be
liable to 3 years in prison simply for owning those
pictures, even if they could demonstrate beyond all
doubt that the actions in the images were entirely
faked.
Of course, it is a slightly far-fetched scenario, but
ultimately almost all the victims of the new law would
be merely differing degrees of that couple's situation
(e.g. consenting adults actually performing the acts
and photographing themselves for their own use;
consenting adults who never do the actions but who
look at the pictures)
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Manniq, 17 Oct 2005 17:33:54
Actually not all that far-fetched. If you think about the money spent by bdsm'ers on equipment, it could well support some very detailed fantasy-ing.
Some years back, I toyed with the idea of doing just the above as a very high end business - putting together weekend packages for the better off bdsm'ers, possibly involving some actors in scene and ending up with a photographic record.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> --- Lothario wrote:
> > The law generally doesn't make distinctions between
> > media.
> >
> > The current proposals concern only images, not
> > writing. While in
> > practice this will generally mean images that have
> > been transmitted
> > across the Internet and stored/viewed on computers,
> > it is not limited
> > to that. It would apply to traditional photography
> > too, even if it
> > were pictures that someone had taken of their own
> > activities at home
> > and had not intended or attempted to distribute in
> > any way.
> It is not impossible to imagine a married couple who
> fantasise about one or other partner being tortured by
> the other, but who are far too squeamish actually to
> try any of the things they've read about on the
> internet, nevertheless set about creating a realistic
> depiction of such a scene, using carefully applied
> theatrical make-up to simulate injuries and posing as
> torturer/tortured while the delayed shutter-release
> works, and thus creating images designed primarily for
> sexual arousal - they then use their pictures to get
> themselves in the mood a couple of times a week,
> looking at them together and never showing them to
> anyone else.
> If the proposals go through, this couple would then be
> liable to 3 years in prison simply for owning those
> pictures, even if they could demonstrate beyond all
> doubt that the actions in the images were entirely
> faked.
> Of course, it is a slightly far-fetched scenario, but
> ultimately almost all the victims of the new law would
> be merely differing degrees of that couple's situation
> (e.g. consenting adults actually performing the acts
> and photographing themselves for their own use;
> consenting adults who never do the actions but who
> look at the pictures)
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
> ___________________________________________________________
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Graham Marsden, 17 Oct 2005 19:17:47
Lothario wrote:
> The current proposals concern only images, not writing. While in
> practice this will generally mean images that have been transmitted
> across the Internet and stored/viewed on computers, it is not limited
> to that. It would apply to traditional photography too, even if it
> were pictures that someone had taken of their own activities at home
> and had not intended or attempted to distribute in any way.
I'm not sure of the current state of the law, but I'm pretty sure that
people have been accused of (if not actually convicted) of "intent to
distribute" simply for having images on a computer that was linked to
the internet.
Cheers,
Graham.
Paul Tavener, 17 Oct 2005 20:03:52
Author wrote:
> Here in Britain the written word alone cannot be deemed obscene (Lady Chatterly), I wonder has this been tested against or applied to the written word on the web rather than the printed word in book form?
I think the written word *can* be deemed obscene. The fact that the Lady Chatterly trial failed and the authorities decided that there was no further point in prosecuting the written word does not mean we are free from the possibility. Although highly unlikely it is at least possible that a sufficiently unpleasent and inflamatory text could spark an obscenity trial and possible that a jury might find that it was depraved and courupting.