UK Obscenity Law Dealt Another Blow

[3113]

Another giant leap for us pornographers!

It was the law used in the controversial prosecution of Lady Chatterley's Lover. Now the Obscene Publications Act, which came into force in 1959, appears to be on its last legs.

On Friday, in one of the most significant cases of recent years, a London jury rejected prosecution claims that gay pornography depicting acts that are legal between consenting adults were capable of "depraving and corrupting" those who watched them on DVDs.

Full story here.

It's a little sad, actually, to see this law go. I do so like the idea that I might be depraving and corrupting someone....

 

[TxRad]

It's a little sad, actually, to see this law go. I do so like the idea that I might be depraving and corrupting someone....

If the law leaves, you can still be depraved... uh you can still deprave and corrupt people but then they can't put you in jail for doing it. Now if you have some depraved and corrupt fantasies about jail, that is a whole other story.

 

[TheEarl]

Another giant leap for us pornographers!

Full story here.

It's a little sad, actually, to see this law go. I do so like the idea that I might be depraving and corrupting someone....

Huzzah. Great decision and a victory for common sense.

The Earl

 

[Handley_Page]

I the case of "Gay Porn", the question, perhaps, should not be whether it may be "read by your wife of your servant" but
"would I approve if my 12 year old son saw it?"

Personally, I wouldn't.

 

[3113]

I the case of "Gay Porn", the question, perhaps, should not be whether it may be "read by your wife of your servant" but
"would I approve if my 12 year old son saw it?"

Personally, I wouldn't.

We presume that if you wouldn't approve of your 12 year old seeing it, you wouldn't leave it around for your 12 year old to read or see. But we can't outlaw stuff just because kids might see it.

And aren't you being a little hypocritical? Or are you saying you didn't try and peek at porn when you were a curious 12 year old?

 

[Handley_Page]

We presume that if you wouldn't approve of your 12 year old seeing it, you wouldn't leave it around for your 12 year old to read or see. But we can't outlaw stuff just because kids might see it.

And aren't you being a little hypocritical? Or are you saying you didn't try and peek at porn when you were a curious 12 year old?

we didn't have that kind of porn with such easy access when I was 12.
It was almost pornographic to see a picture of a girls legs encased in stockings.

 

[Kurokami]

we didn't have that kind of porn with such easy access when I was 12.
It was almost pornographic to see a picture of a girls legs encased in stockings.

Sure, but then again I don't see anyone arguing that 12 year olds should be allowed to view porn, homosexual or otherwise. And there's laws already in place to prevent minors being sold age inappropriate content like this. Not to mention parental responsibility, which should at least play some part here. I sure as hell wouldn't want my kids seeing that stuff, but at the same time I recognize it's my job to censor their viewing habits as best I can, and I definitely don't want the government getting it into their heads that they can do it for me, especially not in sweeping definitions like the laws in question.

Also, when you specify that it's gay porn, not porn in general, you're making a value judgement about sexual orientations, declaring one to be clean, and the other "depraving and corrupting." Maybe that doesn't mean much in a legal sense- though I wouldn't discount that at all- but it does in a cultural sense: it's a tacit government endorsement of an intolerant attitude. I'm glad to see that we seem to be past that level of bullshit.