See also Religious Watch Forum

STICKY:  ChiefCensor       
- Please no spam, libel, slander, etc
- No aggressive personal abuse
- No mindless incitement or hate
- Islamic and races issues should be debated in the Religious Forum

 phantom    {28234.   Posted 26-Jan-2012 Thu 16:41}       
Yes, it may indeed be that the urge to censor, the urge to deny others the sight of things, may in fact be some sort of obsessive compulsive disorder
If I recall correctly, it`s not too long ago that some psychologist suggested that the urge to watch things with the aim of taking offence (and then complain) may in fact be a disorder (a form of moral mania).
So it seems fair to infer that those who feel unable to live in a world in which others aren`t denied something are in fact victims of some psychological failing.
After all, who`d call them sane?

 IanG    {28233.   Posted 26-Jan-2012 Thu 09:28}       
Aye, the hypocrisy of it all stinks to high heaven.

What we have folks is a bunch of misanthropes masquerading as caring individuals/bodies/charities etc. These people don`t give a fuck about anyone or anything but their own fucked-up beliefs.

What`s wrong with women being portrayed in a sexual manner? What`s wrong with women appearing to be sexually attractive, dominant and empowered? How exactly does this demean women? Surely, exposure to such images of women desensitises men to any uncontrollable sexual urges they may experience?

Of course censors only play the desensitisation card when it suits their purposes. Others only play the sexualisation card when it suites their purposes. Well, they can`t have it both ways.

It is clear to me that some people simply despise other people`s bodies, attitudes and sexulity. As I say, these folks are clearly misanthropes - they hate everything about themselves and everyone around them. Yet when these miserable, insane, hateful fucks take `offence` at the slightest hint of normal human behaviour - esp. if it revolves around sex - they cry to the pisspot `authorities` to have their anti-human agenda enforced by pseudo `laws` presented as `guidelines`.

It is also clear from the actual number of complaints the various `regulators` receive that the gob shite misanthropes are a very small minority indeed and, moreover, that the general public do not share their narrow-minded, body-hating, anti-sex views.

Of course the only way to combat easy offence is to bring up our children with open minds, accepting of people`s inherant sexuality, differences and rights to express themselves freely and openly. We cannot make progress until we free ourselves from the religious dogma of sexual repression and misanthropic shits that dare to claim they care one iota about our rights, liberty, thoughts and feelings.

There is no evidence whatsoever to back-up the BBFC/CPS`s claims that images etc. can `corrupt and deprave`. Reasonable people don`t believe it happens, science can`t prove it happens. Only those that wish to deny the rest of us our right to see material they think is `not nice` choose to believe in such nonsense. And at the heart of their argument is the belief that `some people` cannot be trusted and, that they`re doing us all a favour by `protecting` us from these untrustworthy characters. Of course the only people that might be `affected` in the way the BBFC/CPS etc. claim are utterly psychotic and so far gone that no amount of censorship could ever protect the public from their psychotic behaviour. How else do we explain the nutters roaming the streets if the BBFC`s interventions have had the desired effect upon `some people` in society?

Any chance of progress in this society is now dead because we have a bunch of misanthropic fascist morons acting as `regulators` who`ve been created to pamper to the insane whims of a minority of similarly minded misanthropic fascist morons who only need to `feel` a bit `upset` by something to have all our rights and freedoms crushed by their pathetic beliefs.

 phantom    {28232.   Posted 26-Jan-2012 Thu 06:47}       
DarkAngel5 {28231}

"Now, is it my imagination or are these domestic violence charities just a bunch of dull humourless fucks? I seem to recall a similar charity refusing to accept a donation from a group of women who had posed for a "calender girls" style calender as they said they were opposed to pornography.

I mean, just what the hell is wrong with these people?"

You mean to say that you don`t know that rock band posters of skimpily clad girls (who are more attractive than the complainants) have a long record of promoting domestic violence?
And it`s a well known fact that dangling metal balls between your legs can unduly influence some more suggestible men to go and beat up their wives.
Ts, do you know nothing?

Next you`ll be telling me the sight of nun-chackos doesn`t induce a blood frenzy in some youngsters. After all, who could forget the many nun chacko blood baths of the 1980s...

I am however bitterly disappointed at the lady Gaga complaint not being upheld. The deluge of rapes which is now no doubt going to take place because of this lapse will be unimaginable.
Shame on the ASA.

Where is Anne Widdecombe when you need her?

 DarkAngel5    {28231.   Posted 25-Jan-2012 Wed 13:59}       
Just reading about the ASA having a go at Steel Panther`s advert (one of my fave bands at the moment). I see the chief complainant was some domestic violence charity.

Now, is it my imagination or are these domestic violence charities just a bunch of dull humourless fucks? I seem to recall a similar charity refusing to accept a donation from a group of women who had posed for a "calender girls" style calender as they said they were opposed to pornography.

I mean, just what the hell is wrong with these people?

 phantom    {28230.   Posted 25-Jan-2012 Wed 13:22}       
Lol. Fantastic.
So the Peacock case never happened. Or else it is meaningless.
At least so think the CPS and the BBFC.
In short, their word to the industry is; come on then if you think you`re hard enough. We will only give way if forced to.

One isn`t really surprised. Did we really expect them to be grown up about it?
One can sense them sulking from here. They`ve just lost, so they`re going home and taking the ball with them....

Nobody in their right mind can possibly think there is no need to review the guidelines.
After all, if not what was all that talk about meeting with the CPS about?

Clearly they have met and have decided all they can do is tough it out.

Puritans never give way for they are convinced they have right on their side - always.
Also, where really can they go from here? Their edifice to moral purity has been smashed to smithereens - in court.
They were openly mocked. Remember, four fingers good. Five fingers bad.

So for now, they`ve simply decided on a policy of `don`t mention the war`.

It never happened.
Stick your fingers in your ears and repeat after me. `Lalalalalalala.....!`

Good to know that this country leaves the delicate matter of film classification in the hands of people of such maturity.

So someone will have to put up the money to challenge them. Naturally they hope this will be some time - given that it makes little economic sense. (Spend money to be able to distribute to the uk dvd market? ever heard of online...)

But it will happen. Reality tends to come knocking sooner or later.

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {28229.   Posted 24-Jan-2012 Tue 21:38}       
Thanks Sergio
A significant development indeed

 sergio    {28228.   Posted 24-Jan-2012 Tue 03:35}       
Email from BBFC

Thank you for your email.

The role of the BBFC is not to decide the law but to enforce it, and in this we will be guided by the law enforcement agencies. In relation to this case, the CPS have stated that the fact that a jury has acquitted someone does not mean that the guidance is incorrect.

There are no current plans to revise our Guidelines.

Yours sincerely,


J L Green
Chief Assistant (Policy)

------
Email from CPS is awaiting.

---
interesting leveson hearings on 24 jan 2012 morning - Jonathan Heawood (PEN), John Kampfner (Index on Censorship) `the wall of silence...`

 phantom    {28227.   Posted 20-Jan-2012 Fri 16:16}       
Harvey {28223}

`It`s all very well calling the BBFC, but if a distributor accepts the cuts without demur, surely they are accepting the BBFC`s interpretation of the OPA?`

Or the distributor simply accepts the BBFC`s ability to execute its malign power without the need to account for their actions.
After all, if all they need to justify their decisions is to point to their own guidelines.

I trust that`s how Bashar Al Assad is doing it right now. And he`s doing it by the book. But not breaking any rules, of course. Merely following certain guidelines. His own.

So please let`s not decry the victim (and the distributor is the victim here) for not fighting back. The censorship industry holds all the aces.
They don`t go to prison for ignoring rules. The distributor does.

It seems that until they come to some decision regarding the future line in the sand, they are simply pretending the Peacock case didn`t happen.

Truth be told, they can do it. Because they can.

Sure, one can launch a judicial review (should one have the cash spare) but how long will that take? By that time the BBFC and the CPS might have decided to change their `internal guidelines` anyhow...

And I wouldn`t expect them to be answering questions on when they meet and reach decisions. Cults don`t work like that.
So just wait for the white smoke to appear...

 sergio    {28226.   Posted 20-Jan-2012 Fri 08:57}       
[28225]
I have now. I find it funny that the CPS has a page http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_the_month/successes_of_the_month_-_january_2012/

Then I search for Michael Peacock and I get `Sorry, no results found`

Of course they don`t want to advertise their failures.

----------
Man cleared over Girls Aloud blog
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8124059.stm

The last paragraph by Jo Glanville is interesting:
`"In future, obscenity cases should be referred directly to the Director of Public Prosecutions before any prosecution is triggered." `

 ING    {28225.   Posted 20-Jan-2012 Fri 05:22}       
Sergio

Have you asked the B.B.F.C for the date when they meet with the C.P.S. regarding the O.P.A. ?

 sergio    {28224.   Posted 20-Jan-2012 Fri 02:32}       
`BBFC`s interpretation of the OPA?`

Surely, you mean `the BBFC`s interpretation of the CPS`s interpretation of the OPA?`?

 Harvey    {28223.   Posted 19-Jan-2012 Thu 16:41}       
MF [28222]

The test will be whether the distributor challenges the BBFC cuts.

It`s all very well calling the BBFC, but if a distributor accepts the cuts without demur, surely they are accepting the BBFC`s interpretation of the OPA?

 Melon Farmers (Dave)    {28222.   Posted 19-Jan-2012 Thu 05:59}       
The BBFC have just published it`s decision to make cuts to the R18 adult DVD titled The Best of Lucy Law.

It cut 2:35s with the comment:

Cuts were required to remove the clear indication that one woman is licking urine from another, penetration with an object with potential to cause physical harm, and dialogue encouraging an interest in breath restriction. Cuts made in line with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, BBFC Guidelines and policy, and the Video Recordings Act 1984.

So even after such a resounding decision to find urolagnia to be not obscene in the only jury case in recent memory, then the BBFC is still citing bollox that licking urine could somehow deprave and corrupt R18 viewers.

Methinks the censors have watched a few too many golden showers movies themselves.

 cor    {28221.   Posted 18-Jan-2012 Wed 14:50}       
phantom {28220}

"...that someone who watches might be corrupted"
true. i still wonder whether someone working at the BBFC could sue for being corrupted. but of course its less important than pointing out the complete un-scientific basis of the terms deprave and corrupt. as I don`t think they have ever proven such a thing can be inflicted on someone else.. they may as well have called it `bewitched` or `possessed`..

"The DPA is abomination – the OPA is a disgrace"
lol, that`s really all i meant, maybe `miss` is too strong a word.. I`d just slightly rather have a disgraceful law than an abominable one. Its also fun to point out that anyone with `extreme` porn might in certain circumstances be able to protect themselves from a conviction under the DPA by publishing their porn for others to see. - would only work in some cases and only if the OPA superseded the DPA (which i think it did in Peacock`s case), but the fact that it could work shows the ludicrous nature of the DPA...

 phantom    {28220.   Posted 18-Jan-2012 Wed 13:58}       
 cor    {28217}        

`interesting, so where does that leave the BBFC, and the IWF(if they choose to expand their remit)? are these institutions packed with corrupted and depraved people. Or are they violating there employees rights not to be corrupted and depraved, by viewing obscene material in the process of their job... If you accept the premise the OPA stands on, one must be true.`

Well, the OPA doesn`t operate on the notion that anyone who watches is corrupted.
No, it something more invidious.

The OPA operates under the assumption that someone who watches might be corrupted.

In the fine print of the current definitions it boils down to whether a `significant number among the audience` might be corrupted. `Significant number` is not any particular percentage, just whatever that jury in any given trial on any given day deems `significant`.

Of course, it remains that any distributor must know with absolute certainty what a not yet selected jury, in a not yet held trial, of not yet filed charges, may deem a significant number.

One awaits the day when a English court legally accepts psychic powers as fact. After all, there seems to be no other way any distributor could attain such knowledge.

`I will actually miss the OPA if this is the end of it.. it was a better law than the dangerous pictures / cartoons acts, even with the medieval language.`

Nah, sorry. I can`t agree.
The DPA is an abomination – not least as it doesn`t date back to 1959!
But the OPA is a disgrace. Plain and simple.

Any law which stipulates that you may be imprisoned on the basis of breaching vague standards – which will be defined only at your potential trial – is an outrage.

I tend to compare it to traffic lights.
The OPA doesn`t define red as `stop`, amber as `warning` and `green` as go. Instead it has three lights of random colours, neither of which are allocated any particular meaning. The authorities simply reserve the right to question at a later stage whether it is thought that you drove off when a light was shining that, in retrospect, is defined as having meant `stop`.

In short, the OPA is a piece of legislation allowing the authorities to threaten arbitrarily those they deem moral miscreants with imprisonment whenever they like.

 sergio    {28219.   Posted 18-Jan-2012 Wed 04:25}       
Big Brother Brazil Rape FULL VIDEO GRAPHIC - Contestant raped on big brother brazil!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZJcKMBCeFQ

Someone posted the UK law on rape, I don`t know what the rape laws are in Brazil.
1. you don`t actually see much, a blanket moving and some ambiguous sounds.

 sergio    {28218.   Posted 18-Jan-2012 Wed 04:05}       
Wikipedia - firefox,chrome,IE8 + escape key = no blackout

 cor    {28217.   Posted 17-Jan-2012 Tue 23:55}       
@phantom & Harvey

interesting, so where does that leave the BBFC, and the IWF(if they choose to expand their remit)? are these institutions packed with corrupted and depraved people. Or are they violating there employees rights not to be corrupted and depraved, by viewing obscene material in the process of their job... If you accept the premise the OPA stands on, one must be true.

I will actually miss the OPA if this is the end of it.. it was a better law than the dangerous pictures / cartoons acts, even with the medieval language.

 DoodleBug    {28216.   Posted 17-Jan-2012 Tue 23:45}       
As regards the Wikipedia blackout today, it is still perfectly possible to use the site.

I have found when you go to the site or any page on there, just hold your escape button down on the keyboard as soon as the page loads and it stops it going to the "locked" page. Make sure you are quick though at pressing escape.

Just to note though, I am using Safari on MAC OSX so there is a possibility of this not working on other browsers

 Harvey    {28215.   Posted 17-Jan-2012 Tue 15:09}       
phantom [28214]

"If the Peacock case took us a step closer to that point. Good."

That is the message I take from the Peacock acquittal. Actually I think the defence could simply argue that since the DVDs were only likely to be seen by adults (and not just gay porn loving adults) who would not tend to be depraved and corrupted by seeing them, they could not be deemed obscene by being distributed to them by Mr Peacock.

Of course in a particular case, the defence would be taking an unnecessary risk by not deploying the strongest possible argument so I don`t blame them for pointing out that in Peacock`s case the audience was one of gay porn lovers.

 phantom    {28214.   Posted 17-Jan-2012 Tue 13:28}       
Harvey    {28213}        
“"selling to inappropriate person(s)”

That is effectively the present OPA, and I think it should be emphasized whenever any discussion arises as to whether a particular video would or would not be `obscene`.

The BBFC is very quick to state that a scene in a video would be `obscene` under the OPA. My response to such a claim would be; "When seen by whom?"”



A good point well made.
In essence you are stressing that there are two variables.
The content and the audience.

Obscenity in court – as it currently stands – depends on both variables.
Not merely on the content.

That much is clear.

However, we know also that some content won`t even be prosecuted.
As in, when the CPS list of prosecutable content lists fisting and pissing, etc it is obvious to infer that less strong material is not going to be prosecuted.

Thus that latter content doesn`t seem to depend on a second variable, as it isn`t prosecuted.

The future BBFC/CPS position is therefore very important.
Because it would clarify what material nobody has to answer for, rendering the question of the possibly corrupted moot.

-

On a point of principle though it is worth stating that the question of corruption may indeed be heading toward the sunset.

We cannot know what the jury in the Peacock trial thought.
We do know they didn`t think the potential buyers were corruptible by Peacock`s material.
But it seems fair to suspect that they were not necessarily won over by the idea of corruption per se. After all, it seems very anachronistic terminology which jars badly with the world of 2012.

If the buyers were already corrupted, for wanting to see Peacock`s DVDs, then what corrupted them? Can one be corrupted by anything other than watching pornography?
If they wish to watch such material because they are actually drawn to such practices in real life, then it would seem that engaging in the practice itself is corrupting. Which begs the question why corruption by sight is illegal, yet not corruption by deed. - That is if the goal is to avoid corruption of the supposedly corruptible. If it isn`t, then what exactly is the goal?

But as said, the general idea of corruption is really past its sell by date.
For here we are not talking of exposure of material to minors. (Which is why the example of sale of alcohol or cigarettes to minors is far from ideal.)
Here we are looking at the supposed corruption of adults.

The questions regarding said corruption are quite plain.
What does said corruption entail? Are corrupted people in anyway impaired? What negative effect does having suffered such corruption have on their lives or on their ability to contribute to society?
Are corrupted people less valuable to a society than such who have not been corrupted?
In short: what actually is the difference between a corrupted and a non-corrupted person?

Especially, given that it seems one can be corrupted prior to seeking to purchase sleazy Michael`s DVDs.

I feel that one day this may in fact be subject to judicial revue, if it doesn`t die a death before then.
Because it defies logic.

The sheer fact that the law seems to accept that people can be corrupted by something other than watching porn – and that those who are already corrupted can then be sold to – seems to suggest that there is a gaping hole in the logic of this entire thing.

`Wish to see a film of a man being fisted up his rectum? No, we can`t sell you a film. Not before you`ve actually had a man fist you up the rectum first. Once you`ve done that, you`re qualified to view.`

Now sure, I`m engaging in a little reductio ad absurdum. But you get my drift.

Michael Peacock is a male escort. If a fresh faced 18 year old lad had come his way, the law may have deemed him corruptible/uncorrupted.
Would he first have to have indulged in the practices with Mr Peacock, paying him for said services, before he could then legally obtain the DVDs from Mr Peacock?
I know, I know. I`m labouring a point. But one does wonder whether the law is stipulating that potential buyers can be rendered legal by being corrupted by means other than DVD.

Generally, I`d just say that the whole corruption issue has a ring to it of all the things which were once said about homosexuality. Let us not forget why the homosexual age of consent was long kept above that of heterosexual relationships. To prevent older gay men corrupting youngsters....

To my view once you`re an adult that`s that. You`ve got yourself a ticket to the world and that`s that. The idea that there is corrupting material is a nonsense and the sooner we`re rid of the idea, the better.

If the Peacock case took us a step closer to that point. Good.
If not, then I sure hope something else will.

 Harvey    {28213.   Posted 17-Jan-2012 Tue 09:02}       
sergio [28212]

"selling to inappropriate person(s)"

That is effectively the present OPA, and I think it should be emphasized whenever any discussion arises as to whether a particular video would or would not be `obscene`.

The BBFC is very quick to state that a scene in a video would be `obscene` under the OPA. My response to such a claim would be; "When seen by whom?"

 sergio    {28212.   Posted 17-Jan-2012 Tue 08:53}       
I wonder if you could reformulate the obscenity act to say `selling or viewing to inappropriate person(s)`.

But the charge is usually for selling `obscene` items. An item can potentially have the quality of obscenity given the relevant circumstances.
An item either does or doesn`t have this quality (according to the circumstances) and a jury decision.

 Harvey    {28211.   Posted 17-Jan-2012 Tue 07:52}       
sergio [28210]

You are right. "There is a quality called `obscenity`"

But my analogy was to show PRECISELY that it is NOT simply the quality of the vodka/DVD which is being tested in court, but the act of selling/showing it. And that depends to whom it is being sold/shown. In the context of the OPA `obscenity` is defined in section 1 (1);

"For the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it."


So as it relates to the OPA, `obscenity` is not simply a property of the article (book, website, DVD) but of the effect of it being read, seen or heard by certain persons.

Therefore, even after the recent verdict, it really is meaningless to say that any particular article or genre either is or is not going to be found to be `obscene` under the OPA. It really depends on who is likely to see it as a result of it being shown.


Of course, this results in the situation where distributing a particular DVD can be both not obscene, if distributed to those who are beyond being depraved and corrupted by it, and obscene if distributed to others. I appreciate it does not neatly define particular articles as being inherently either `legal` or `illegal`, and so may be unsettling for those who like to see the world that way. Personally I find this formulation of the law, which allows a jury to discriminate depending on the *effect* of publication, far preferable to one, like the DPA, which is prescriptive, based simply on the nature or content of what is being published.

 sergio    {28210.   Posted 17-Jan-2012 Tue 06:25}       
Harvey [28202]
I think your analogy is incorrect. Michael Peacock wasn`t charged with illegally selling dvds.

There is a quality called `obscenity` and it was the that that was tested in the court. I am not sure exactly what quality the vodka had or was tested for.

 Harvey    {28209.   Posted 17-Jan-2012 Tue 05:25}       
sergio [28202]

"Does the dvd `change` according to who is watching it?"

No. The DVD stays the same. What changes is whether a criminal offence is being committed by the person who shows it to them.

c.f. Sale of alcohol. A licensee selling vodka to an adult is behaving legally. If he sells the same vodka to an under 18, he`s committing an offence. So, does the vodka change according to who is buying it?

 emark    {28208.   Posted 16-Jan-2012 Mon 15:24}       
I agree with the distinction on calling for someone to be put to death, versus calling for a change in the law. Though it`s ambiguous to me whether calling for execution or the death penalty (as http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/10/muslim-anti-gay-leaflet-hate says) would be talking about lobbying for UK law, or calling for action under religious law.

Though yes, I still oppose the "inciting hate" crimes - we already have laws against inciting violence, and that`s what this should come under, if anything.

I was amused by `It described homosexuality as a "vile, ugly, cancerous disease" and stated: "Gay today, paedophile tomorrow?"" - wow, if only we could round up the politicians, lobbyists and police officers who made the hateful claim of consensual adult sex leading to pedophilia, when supporting Section 63...

@cor: Whilst believing in absolute no-limits freedom of speech is perfectly noble, I disagree that one must support this. There are plenty of other reasonable and consistent views, such as those based around harm (actual harm, not made up) or consent (so images viewed by those who want to see them are never illegal - it`s not a question of an arbitrary line; but things like defamation, inciting violence, invasion of privacy or child porn don`t come under the same argument).

Sure it`s silly to say North Korea has freedom of speech. But then, you would say that no country has freedom of speech, and I`m not sure that`s very useful either.

 phantom    {28207.   Posted 16-Jan-2012 Mon 12:59}       
DarkAngel5 {28204}

`However, in the case of the muslims in Derby, if I understood the article correctly, they appeared to be calling for homosexuals to be executed.

If so, that goes well beyond the acceptable limits of free speech.`

I don`t really think this goes beyond the limits of free speech.
Let me clarify: asking for people to be executed in my view means lobbying that the law ought to be changed so that people can be lawfully executed.
Asking for people to be lynched is to encourage people to take the law into their own hands against others.

The latter I think should be illegal.
But the former I believe should be perfectly lawful.

You may recall, I mentioned the Peacock case. Should the Mediawatch people who want the law `tightened up` so that people like Peacock would be imprisoned in future be themselves charged for expressing such a desire?

If someone is heard saying that some convicted paedophile should be given the death penalty, is that really incitement? Or just the expression of a preference to bring back hanging.

I just feel that secular, liberal minded folk need to be aware that we need to allow those who are not of our opinion some breathing space.

 cor    {28206.   Posted 16-Jan-2012 Mon 12:13}       
@DarkAngel5
free speech by its definition means you must support the right of people to say what you find totally unacceptable and repugnant - if it was anything other than this then every country on earth could claim to have it e.g. North Korea has free speech so long as whats said is not unacceptable and repugnant to the dear leader (or now his son). - if you think free speech and free expression is important then this is the criteria you have to hold it to - or its worthless.

i think we can all agree that "calling for homosexuals to be executed" is in fact unacceptable and repugnant and so must be aloud if we support free speech... no one said these freedoms would come without a price, i hope there are some people "calling for homophobes to be executed" and maybe in the divide some sense can be found - without unintentionally encouraging people to resort to violence by trying to silence them.

If a line exists, to me it should be `conspiring to commit a crime` certainly not addressing our government for a change in laws, no matter how ludicrous that change might seem.

 sergio    {28205.   Posted 16-Jan-2012 Mon 11:49}       
I think I get it now. Each count was for each dvd (as listed previously).

Here`s some Christian ranting.
http://solicitorsfromhell.net/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=sobi2Details&sobi2Id=57&Itemid=

 DarkAngel5    {28204.   Posted 16-Jan-2012 Mon 10:51}       
@Phantom
I have no problems with people expressing unpopular opinions. I seem to recall Stephen Green, or someone of his ilk, getting arrested just for distributing leaflets with bible verses on them, outlining the bible`s opposition to homosexuality.

This I felt was heavy handed, as in this case he was merely expressing an opinion.

However, in the case of the muslims in Derby, if I understood the article correctly, they appeared to be calling for homosexuals to be executed.

If so, that goes well beyond the acceptable limits of free speech.

In any case, I have little patience with religious bigots preaching intollerence, be they muslim, christian or whatever. If Stephen Green (or whoever it was) had been resorting to "Westboro Baptist Church" methods and waving banners saying "god hates fags" then I would expect the same for him.

 phantom    {28203.   Posted 16-Jan-2012 Mon 08:19}       
Harvey [28201]

`But from the reports we have of the trial, they were handing out leaflets which encouraged others to hate homosexuals.`

Again, I think that is a fairly tricky terrain.
Just what is `encouragement`?
Is saying that "God hates gays" encouragement to do the same?
Is saying "God says you ought to hate gays" such encouragement?

When does the belief that some mystical deity (and I`m afraid humanity`s track record indicates we`re stuck with such invisible forces for the time being) doesn`t like something, become an encouragement to hatred and when is it merely the statement of a religious doctrine?

`Some of the leaflets described ways in which homosexuals could/should be murdered.`

Murdered or killed?
I`m not familiar with the precise details of the leaflets, but from what I have read about it, it stipulated several ways (by fire, etc) that they might be killed.

Again, if the Daily Mail would list various sentences they would prefer Michael Peacock getting rather than being let off scot free, what if one of them would be the death penalty? Would that be incitement to murder - or merely the suggestion that the death penalty should apply to people like him (and no doubt others of whom the Daily Mail doesn`t approve)?

I just feel that someone expressing that they don`t like something, even hate it, should not fall foul of the law.

I hate the BNP. I hate racists. I hate religious extremists.
I should be free to express this.
However in turn, they ought to be free to express their hatred. Else, how come am I free to speak about them, yet they may see their speech stifled?

Somehow in this drive for liberalisation of attitudes, I think we`ve forgotten that some folks simply won`t share emergent permissive ideas. Some will be stuck in their way.
Usually older generations just have to die out for certain attitudes to finally go away. This doesn`t mean though that we ought to censor them.

But instead we`ve sort of embarked on this ridiculous quest of silencing anyone who doesn`t conform to the new line.
Thus gollywogs are now unacceptable. Or saying that gays are an abomination. But what if you like gollywogs? or if you really feel that gays are an evil in the eyes of your god?

Talking of gollywogs, I recall that occasion when the media went into a frenzy over Carol Thatcher describing a black tennis player (Tsonga I believe) as `looking like a gollywog` in the green room of a BBC program.

Jo Brand who was present, later took it upon herself to inform the world and the BBC hierarchy about this and Thatcher got canned.

I`m not sure how this made the world a better place.
Sure, I couldn`t stand Carol Thatcher. No less that she had made herself a celebrity on the back of being someone`s daughter.

But was the fact that she holds backward views on race really a sufficient reason to publicly deride her as a racist and fire her?

If you have grown up in a art of society which perhaps holds old fashioned, or obsolete views does this mean you should be condemned to silence, in case Jo Brand should be around?

In my view life is a matter of give and take.

There are plenty of people who have awful, or just awkward views that no longer chime with the times.

I know someone who at times has referred to very tanned people as being `nigger brown`. Yet in my eye this person doesn`t really have a racist bone in their body. It`s just that this person grew up in the 1940`s and these were different times.

Somehow we have to find it within ourselves to live along those who perhaps are not up to speed with prevailing society.

Otherwise, the idea that they `have no place in a civilised society` just sounds a little familiar, doesn`t it?

 sergio    {28202.   Posted 16-Jan-2012 Mon 06:18}       
If I show a gay fisting dvd to a straight guy is the dvd obscene?

If I show a gay fisting dvd to a gay guy is the dvd obscene?

Does the dvd `change` according to who is watching it?

 Harvey    {28201.   Posted 16-Jan-2012 Mon 03:10}       
phantom [28199]

"In my view they were expressing their hatred of homosexuality.
I don`t see that as necessarily the same thing as inciting hatred."

But from the reports we have of the trial, they were handing out leaflets which encouraged others to hate homosexuals.

Some of the leaflets described ways in which homosexuals could/should be murdered.

 Harvey    {28200.   Posted 16-Jan-2012 Mon 03:03}       
sergio [28197]

-- ????? `... the way in which it was being distributed to others ...`
Doesn`t that come under the VRA?

In the context of the OPA, it probably refers to "persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it".

Peacock`s defence argued that the DVDs would only be seen by gay men who were specifically interested in the genre of pornography which was being distributed.

In R v Perrin, he was acquitted of counts where the porn was behind an adult paywall, but convicted of publishing trailers which were not, so it`s clear that juries are looking carefully at the law and in particular whether they think that "persons who are likely to read..." are the kind who would be depraved, corrupted, etc.

Having regard to this, it`s probably far too simplistic to say that any particular genre of porn is now officially not obscene. Because it`s not just the content which determines whether publication or distribution is an offence, but the nature of the intended audience and the care taken to make sure that it`s not seen by others.

 phantom    {28199.   Posted 15-Jan-2012 Sun 16:03}       
DarkAngel5 [28198]

I`m not sure that my opinion on the Muslim gay bashers is so clear cut as yours.

In my view they were expressing their hatred of homosexuality.
I don`t see that as necessarily the same thing as inciting hatred.

Though I understand the law in question (one, which I disagree with) sees the two as much the same thing.

Expressing a desire for something to be seen as wrong, wicked or abhorrent is not necessarily wrong in itself.

Let`s take the Peacock case.
Should we see the prosecutor charged for inciting hatred against people who like pissing, fisting and testicle punching? Because he described these acts as obscene and beyond the pale? Because he sees them as obscenities for which he thinks others should be punished?

You see, in my view, the whole hatred against homosexuality argument has swung way too far. If previously the prevailing opinion that homosexuality was something sick was enforced by law, then now the prevailing view that it isn`t is enforced in much the same way.

In short; people are published for not conforming.

True, the prior laws banned a sexual imperative (which was insane), but the latter approach seems to ban a point of view.

Sure, politicians will semantically explain that you are legally permitted to hold the view, simply not to express it. But to me, that`s much of a muchness.
A bit like telling the Syrians that they can dislike president Bashir al-Assad. They just may not say as much.

As said, in my view the law on incitement to hatred against homosexuality was one of those poorly thought through laws, which had all the best liberal intentions at heart, but is – like just about anything Blairite – extraordinarily illiberal in practice.

Freedom must mean that people can speak freely. If that means that they say how they hate foreigners, homosexuals and gypsies then that is, sadly, a price we need to pay.

Freedom must be the right to despise the freedom of others.

The idea that you can live in a liberal society by enforcing some sort of liberal doctrine in my view only leads to one place; hell.

 DarkAngel5    {28198.   Posted 15-Jan-2012 Sun 13:55}       
Just reading the good news about the aquittal of that chap charged with obscenity.

The rational course of action now would be to accept, that there is NO provable tendancy to deprave or corrupt and to scrap such outdated censorship laws.

However, I fear what our learnid peers and over zealous police force will instead call for is more stringent legislation to enable them to deal with material they feel we shouldn`t be allowed to see!

Second comment, regarding those Muslims distributing anti-gay leaflets. I do think that in this case, prosecution is warranted and these imbeciles should have the book thrown at them.

These people were not merely expressing an opinion, they were pretty much inciting murder, which is an abuse of freedom of speech. I dislike many muslim practices because I feel they are outdated, based on ignorance and are not in line with what is considered acceptable behaviour in the 21st century. That does not mean I think we should kill them!

 sergio    {28197.   Posted 15-Jan-2012 Sun 07:18}       
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/01/crown-court-prosecution

` The CPS charged Michael Peacock with publishing obscene articles for gain, as we were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to secure a realistic prospect of conviction, and that it was in the public interest to prosecute these allegations.

The prosecution was not only about the content of the material, but the way in which it was being distributed to others, without checks being made as to the age or identity of recipients.

The judge was satisfied that there was a case to answer, but having heard all of the evidence for both the prosecution and the defence, the jury acquitted the defendant.

We respect the jury`s decision.`


`The prosecution was not only about the content of the material, but the way in which it was being distributed to others, without checks being made as to the age or identity of recipients.`

????? `... the way in which it was being distributed to others ...`
Doesn`t that come under the VRA?

New url
http://lawjusticejournalism.org/2012/01/13/r-v-peacock-landmark-trial-redefines-obscenity-law/
`In essence, the jury had to decide whether knowledgeable customers with certain sexual proclivities, who had actually sought out and paid for DVDs featuring a specific niche of porn, would be depraved and corrupted by it.`

 sergio    {28196.   Posted 15-Jan-2012 Sun 05:48}       
Harvey [28195]
I doubt it. There is some `evidence` that the CPS used this as a test case.

I am still not certain exactly what the 6 counts were that he was totally acquitted of.

`count 1. crown say distinction of fisting to extent of up to elbow is the line of obscenity`
`count 3, whipping, urethral sounds, needles crosses line of obscenity`

`Count 2 is "impressive impacts"` - first jury not unanimous on count 2 but then they were unanimous.

This is based on Alex Dymock`s twitter feed https://twitter.com/lexingtondymock