sexual offenders register
clare, 28 Oct 2005 16:45:25
I was browsing, as you do, Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offenders Act 2003.... and saw that someone convicted of importing obscene material contrary to the Customs & Excise rules, or knowingly possessing such material, has to go on the Sexual Offenders Register.
guy, 28 Oct 2005 17:21:44
> I was browsing, as you do, Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offenders Act 2003.... and
> saw that someone convicted of importing obscene material contrary to the
> Customs & Excise rules,
...
or knowingly possessing such material, has to go on the
> Sexual Offenders Register.
>
That puts the police on the list too ...
Seriously though, if I follow the twisted logic of the people behind this
proposal, even the most minor conviction under these laws would be certain to
lead to a listing on the Sexual Offenders Register.
NB I also know of a guy who imported a video from France, Customs stopped it.
Unusually he took them to court and won, but the customs gave it to the
police, would not then give it back, as "That would constitute publication
under the Obscene Publications Act". That one went up to the Home Secretary, he
got the video and it was crap .... you win some, you lose some. So if they
seize stuff in a raid, but the defendant subsequently wins, they may still keep
what they seized on similar grounds. If they lose they are likely to destroy
the lot, even the copies of Readers Digest, etc. not just what was considered
in court, as is routinely done in Obscene Publications Trials.
Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality
Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids,
The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society:
fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity
www.academy-inc.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com
PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100
Morgarth, 29 Oct 2005 13:24:54
Author wrote:
> I was browsing, as you do, Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offenders Act 2003.... and saw that someone convicted of importing obscene material contrary to the Customs & Excise rules, or knowingly possessing such material, has to go on the Sexual Offenders Register.
I think that is only if the prohibited goods included indecent photographs of persons under 16 (paras 14, 44 and 78).
Morgarth
Manniq, 31 Oct 2005 16:15:59
Yes: in one sense, I wouldn't go there, as the saying has it, because the model for the C&E Act is far, far more repressive than that for the OPA.
The OPA requires showing that a reasonable person might find something obscene...whilst the CE Act merely requires that an officer of the C&E deem it to be nasty (scuse my non-legal terminology).
For this reason, there have been instances of the C&E preventing the import of material already passed for certification by the BBFC.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> I was browsing, as you do, Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offenders Act 2003.... and saw that someone convicted of importing obscene material contrary to the Customs & Excise rules, or knowingly possessing such material, has to go on the Sexual Offenders Register.
clare, 31 Oct 2005 17:18:05
I wasn't going there.. only pointing out that there are many different routes to ending up on the register. And Morgarth is right, the Customs and Excise offence is only relevant if the images are of chidren.
The OPA doesn't require a finding that a reasonable person might find something obscene. It requires a finding that the people likely to view the material may be corrupted or depraved by it.
The difference is important. A finding that the people likely to view the material may be corrupted or depraved is an attempt to direct the law to *prevent* corruption. In that sense it can be said to work to protect public morals (even if the application of the rule is flawed). The definition also allows for public morals to change over time, and thus the likelihood of corruption to be diminshed (or increased)according to prevailing norms.
A "reasonable person" test is objective. That is the court superimposes its view of an ordinary reasonable person, without paying any regard to the effect of the material on the people who are actually likely to see it. If the OPA used an objective test, it would mean that material supplied in licensed sex shops would have to be tested against corruptibility of the reasonable person who is never likely to enter a sex shop.
The OPA follows the protection of morals of likely viewers approach. The proposed new offence is not concerned AT ALL with protection of morals. Nor does the definition of the proscribed material allow for public morals to change over time. It simpy punishes the immoral (immorality judged by an inflexible definition).
Even the censorship laws of apartheid South Africa in the 1980s did not go that far.
Of course its real purpose is to facilitate privatised censorship by the IWF.
I am wondering if passing a criminal law in order to achieve a different objective is an abuse of power, misfeasance in public office etc. Probably more on that later.
Author wrote:
> Yes: in one sense, I wouldn't go there, as the saying has it, because the model for the C&E Act is far, far more repressive than that for the OPA.
> The OPA requires showing that a reasonable person might find something obscene...whilst the CE Act merely requires that an officer of the C&E deem it to be nasty (scuse my non-legal terminology).
> For this reason, there have been instances of the C&E preventing the import of material already passed for certification by the BBFC.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > I was browsing, as you do, Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offenders Act 2003.... and saw that someone convicted of importing obscene material contrary to the Customs & Excise rules, or knowingly possessing such material, has to go on the Sexual Offenders Register.
Manniq, 01 Nov 2005 13:58:30
Yes. Understood. However, the point of difference I was getting at was pretty much the one you highlight: that the OPA has a general test within it, whilst the C&E Act relies on an individual reaction.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> I wasn't going there.. only pointing out that there are many different routes to ending up on the register. And Morgarth is right, the Customs and Excise offence is only relevant if the images are of chidren.
> The OPA doesn't require a finding that a reasonable person might find something obscene. It requires a finding that the people likely to view the material may be corrupted or depraved by it.
> The difference is important. A finding that the people likely to view the material may be corrupted or depraved is an attempt to direct the law to *prevent* corruption. In that sense it can be said to work to protect public morals (even if the application of the rule is flawed). The definition also allows for public morals to change over time, and thus the likelihood of corruption to be diminshed (or increased)according to prevailing norms.
> A "reasonable person" test is objective. That is the court superimposes its view of an ordinary reasonable person, without paying any regard to the effect of the material on the people who are actually likely to see it. If the OPA used an objective test, it would mean that material supplied in licensed sex shops would have to be tested against corruptibility of the reasonable person who is never likely to enter a sex shop.
> The OPA follows the protection of morals of likely viewers approach. The proposed new offence is not concerned AT ALL with protection of morals. Nor does the definition of the proscribed material allow for public morals to change over time. It simpy punishes the immoral (immorality judged by an inflexible definition).
> Even the censorship laws of apartheid South Africa in the 1980s did not go that far.
> Of course its real purpose is to facilitate privatised censorship by the IWF.
> I am wondering if passing a criminal law in order to achieve a different objective is an abuse of power, misfeasance in public office etc. Probably more on that later.
> Author wrote:
> > Yes: in one sense, I wouldn't go there, as the saying has it, because the model for the C&E Act is far, far more repressive than that for the OPA.
> > The OPA requires showing that a reasonable person might find something obscene...whilst the CE Act merely requires that an officer of the C&E deem it to be nasty (scuse my non-legal terminology).
> > For this reason, there have been instances of the C&E preventing the import of material already passed for certification by the BBFC.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > Author wrote:
> > > I was browsing, as you do, Schedule 3 of the Sexual Offenders Act 2003.... and saw that someone convicted of importing obscene material contrary to the Customs & Excise rules, or knowingly possessing such material, has to go on the Sexual Offenders Register.
Paul C. Dickie, 01 Nov 2005 19:12:41
In message <6069709.1130779079224.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com
>, pearl_maude1@hotmail.com wrote:
>The OPA doesn't require a finding that a reasonable person might find something
>obscene. It requires a finding that the people likely to view the material may
>be corrupted or depraved by it.
>
>The difference is important. A finding that the people likely to view the
>material may be corrupted or depraved is an attempt to direct the law to
>*prevent* corruption. In that sense it can be said to work to protect public
>morals (even if the application of the rule is flawed). The definition also
>allows for public morals to change over time, and thus the likelihood of
>corruption to be diminshed (or increased)according to prevailing norms.
However, it is not a valid defence to prove that the reader or viewer
had previously been thoroughly corrupted by other material. (ISTR that
argument was once attempted in the case of a vendor or publisher of
contact magazines who was being prosecuted for offences contrary to the
Post Office Act)
>I am wondering if passing a criminal law in order to achieve a different
>objective is an abuse of power, misfeasance in public office etc. Probably more
>on that later.
Whilst I wonder if it could be construed to be a form of indirect
discrimination against homosexualists...
To some extent, BDSM seems to be involved with homosexualism -- whether
it's merely tickling, slap and tickle, fisting or the (allegedly
mythical) gerbilling. Part of the joy of BDSM is the planning or
discussion stage and, without images of what is to befall the
submissive, that might seem rather flat and uninteresting. Therefore,
to ban images of one homosexualist flogging another, or inserting his
fingers, hand or arm up another would seem to interfere in what they'd
do to each other and, hence, could be discriminatory.
But if images of homosexualists are allowed, then images of heterosexual
play must also be permitted as to allow one but not the other would be
direct discrimination.
--
< Paul >