1 / 17

CENSORSHIP

CENSORSHIP. 1. OBSCENITY, INDECENCY & PORNOGRAPHY. SPECIFIC TOPICS. Obscenity & indecency Hate speech - Race, religion & sexual orientation Data Protection/FOI Official Secrets/War correspondents. IS CENSORSHIP NECESSARY?. An eternal question Used for control?

marcelg
Download Presentation

CENSORSHIP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CENSORSHIP 1. OBSCENITY, INDECENCY & PORNOGRAPHY

  2. SPECIFIC TOPICS • Obscenity & indecency • Hate speech - Race, religion & sexual orientation • Data Protection/FOI • Official Secrets/War correspondents

  3. IS CENSORSHIP NECESSARY? • An eternal question • Used for control? • Protection of the vulnerable? e.g. children • Is some material really harmful? • What is ‘harm’? • Divergence of opinion

  4. BBC IN 1939 ‘It has been said that there are only 6 jokes in the world and I can assure you that we cannot broadcast 3 of them’ Head of BBC ‘Variety’ Advance censorship of material continued for many years – and probably still does e.g ‘Winter draws on’ was not allowed in the 1950s

  5. ‘THE WINDOW CLEANER’ • ‘Pyjamas lying side by side, ladies nighties I have spied. I’ve often seen what goes inside, when I’m cleaning windows’ Extract from a popular song banned by the BBC in the 1930s despite being sung nightly in a pantomime.

  6. Obscene Publications legislation • Obscene Publications Acts 1959/1964 as amended by Broadcasting Act 1990 • ‘an article shall be deemed obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises 2 or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as tend to deprave &corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it’

  7. What does this mean? • A subjective element here • Work should be taken as a whole BUT ONE section in a magazine or film can taint the whole • R v Anderson [1971] Oz Magazine case

  8. DEPRAVE & CORRUPT • Definition? • …a ‘significant proportion’ of those likely to read, see or hear material • What is a ‘significant proportion’? • S1 only requires jury to be satisfied there is a likelihood of vulnerable people seeing the material. Prosecution does not have toshow that anyone actually saw it.

  9. 2 CASES to contrast • R v Calder & Boyars Ltd [1968] ‘Last Exit to Brooklyn’ case - could use ‘public good’ defence. • R v Perrin [2002]- obscene web page

  10. DECIDING IF MATERIALIS OBSCENE (1) • Consider the article as a whole and ask: • WHO is likely to see, read or hear the material? • Taking that audience into account – is the material likely to morally deprave or corrupt? • If ‘yes’ then what proportion OF THAT AUDIENCE. If more than a small proportion then…….

  11. DECIDING IF MATERIAL ISOBSCENE (2) • …ASK whether material is SO repulsive that it is likely to discourage such behaviour ( aversion ‘defence’) • If ‘NO’ then material may be obscene

  12. WHO IS CAUGHT BY THE ACT? • 2 main offences • Both mainly concerned with commercial activity • Note the requirements of publication and gain

  13. 3 DEFENCES TO CONSIDER • Public Good - depends on nature of the material • Innocent publication or dissemination • Aversion – not a ‘true’ defence but is used as such

  14. IS THE LAW STILL RELEVANT? • Consider recent comments from legal practitioners • Look at R v Peacock [2011] – acquittal - sold Gay ‘Niche’ films. All films portrayed legal acts.

  15. EXTREME PORNOGRAPHY • It is an offence merely to possess extreme pornography as defined in s.63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 contrast with Obscene Publications • A controversial piece of legislation - does it achieve what it set out do? • See criticism of existence of legislation, it’s wording and it’s use.

  16. CASES • R v Webster – Acquitted. Possession of ‘death fetish’ films. All produced using actors by company called ‘Drop dead Gorgeous’ • R v Oliver – Prison Governor convicted. Possession of material but also installed ‘team viewer’ software.

  17. European Court of Human Rights View • Tend to give a wide margin for each state to control material considered obscene/blasphemous • Court takes view that each member state understands what it’s citizens will accept or not • ‘Margin of Appreciation’

More Related