ATVOD Extremism…ATVOD suggests that hardcore websites should be prosecuted under the Obscene Publication Act

Read more ATVOD Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

How can the depiction of something that is so commonplace, so central to life, so widely discussed (even amongst teenagers) and so comprehensively taught in schools, possibly deprave and corrupt? Undesirable for children maybe, but depraving and corrupting? Thanks to Therumbler See  article from  atvod.co.uk See also Submission to UKCCIS consultation on parental controls [pdf] See also Submission to Lords Communication Committee on media convergence [pdf]

ATVOD has published its submission to the recent consultation by the UK Council for Child Internet Safety on parental controls its submission to the call for evidence from the House of Lords Select Committee on Communicatons on media convergence and its public policy impact Together the documents begin to articulate ATVOD emerging public policy positions, setting out: ATVOD role and activities, especially in relation to protecting children The limitations of the current regulatory scheme, especially in relation to non-UK services ATVOD’s view that it would be premature to attempt to put in place a rigid new regulatory structure ATVOD’s view that public policy should focus on clearly identified areas of public concern, including the ease with which children can access hardcore porn online ATVOD’s view that parental controls and media education are part of the solution, but their efficacy should not be overstated ATVOD’s view that further consideration should be given to more active enforcement existing legislation, including the Obscene Publications Act

Twisted Obscenity Law…UK judges quietly declare text chat can be obscene

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See  article from  theregister.co.uk by Jane Fae ozimek

You could be committing a criminal offence next time you discuss your deepest fantasies with someone online. Alarmist? Only slightly. A ruling slipped out quietly by the Appeal Court earlier this year, and lurking in the background while the substantive case to which it applied came to court, makes it plain: the act of publishing as defined within the Obscene Publications Act can take place with an audience of just one individual. That means it is therefore perfectly possible for the content of online chat, should a jury decide that it is capable of depraving or corrupting , to be judged obscene - and as such for one or both participants in that conversation to be guilty of a criminal offence that carries a sentence of up to five years in prison, and a stint on the sex offenders’ register. This is legal dynamite – and in one single judgment catapults the UK to the back of the queue on a range of international indices on freedom of speech. …Read the full article

An Obscene Legal Manoeuvre…Man pleads guilty to an obscene private online chat after being offered a lenient sentence

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

So if the authorities want to invent a new angle to a law they prosecute someone, offer a lenient sentence for pleading guilty, then take the inevitable successful prosecution as justification for an extended law. See  article from  kentonline.co.uk

Kent Police have set a legal precedent after successfully prosecuting a man for making lewd comments about children during a private online conversation. Gavin Smith was charged in 2010 with nine offences of publishing an obscene article. Under the Obscene Publications Act, it is an offence to supply material ( interpreted as distribute, circulate, sell, hire, give, or lend) , that tends to deprave and corrupt those view it. When the case first came before magistrates, it was discharged on arguments of no case to answer. However the CPS said they had received new evidence in this matter and, following a review, decided to re-charge Smith. At his first trial at Maidstone Crown Court in November last year, the court heard that Smith had online conversations in which he spoke about molesting and spanking children. His counsel claimed Kent Police were on a moral crusade by prosecuting Smith under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The jury in the trial was discharged by Judge Charles Macdonald QC after hearing legal arguments. His barrister Roger Daniells-Smith told the court on that occasion: This is a test case. We say it is part of a political campaign by Kent Police. We say this is a moral crusade by Kent Police to extend the law, to try to get this material included as extreme pornography.But their arguments to have online conversations included fell on stony ground , he said: They therefore had nothing other than to try (to prosecute) under this act. But the court decision was subsequently appealed by the Crown Prosecution Service, with the Court of Appeal ruling in their favour. Smith was due to go on trial for a second time this week. But after being given a Goodyear direction , in which a judge indicates what the likely sentence would be if a defendant pleads guilty, Smith admitted all nine offences after being told that the sentence would likely be a suspended jail term or community order. Adjourning sentence for reports, Judge Philip St.John-Stevens described the case as unusual . The case could now open the doors for police forces across the country to charge suspected offenders for online conversations.

Depraved…The CPS still stands by its ludicrous opinion that the sight of an actress licking urine tends to deprave and corrupt R18 viewers

Read more BBFC News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Thanks to Sergio

The BBFC 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. This decision was published after the R v Peacock case where a jury unanimously cleared films depicting full on urolagnia of obscenity. Sergio enquired of the BBFC whether anything has changed regarding the R V Peacock case and received an email from the BBFC: 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)

Depraved Thinking at the BBFC…BBFC still believe that the sight of an actress licking urine can deprave and corrupt R18 viewers

Read more BBFC News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bbfc.co.uk

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.

Delighted…Comments about the recent victory over the Obscene Publications Act

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from iusw.org

The International Union of Sex Workers is delighted by the unanimous verdicts of not guilty on all counts in the trial of Michael Peacock that concluded at Southwark Crown Court on Friday 6th January. Michael’s courage and determination in pursuing this case was the first challenge to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 for many years. Understandably, most people charged with offences under this Act plead guilty as an innocent plea followed by a court case that returns a guilty verdict will result in a harsher sentence. This has the effect of leaving police and CPS opinion of what is obscene untested. The DVDs that were the subject of this prosecution were sold through Michael’s website, sleazymichael.com, and on Craigslist. They contained scenes of male fisting, urination and BDSM. Michael was charged with six counts of publishing obscene articles likely to deprave and corrupt. The jury saw a substantial amount of the content which the police and CPS deemed illegal and required less than two hours deliberation to return unanimous not guilty verdicts on all counts. Therefore material showing the activities depicted is no longer defined as obscene in law. It’s time to decriminalise sex between consenting adults. Lady Chatterley trial of 1960 (R v Penguin Books) is still quoted as precedent in obscenity trials; the jury’s response in R v Peacock shows public opinion has clearly moved on considerably. Catherine Stephens, activist with the International Union of Sex Workers, says: In a week that has also seen the collapse of the Sheila Farmer trial for brothel keeping, it is time to decriminalise the sexual activities of consenting adults, whether or not they are in front of a camera. These two trials were an appalling waste of public resources: the law as it stands does nothing to enhance the safety either of the general public or those who work in the adult industry and often actively increases the dangers we face. Michael Peacock says: Responsible treatment of pornography would allow adults who want to access sexually explicit materials freedom to do so and protect those who are underage or do not wish to view such content. The current legal framework fails to do either of these things. I give my thanks to my legal team at Hodge Jones Allen, the judge who heard my case and the twelve people who served on the jury whose maturity and commonsense has changed the law. Hazel Eracleous, Chair of Backlash comments: Backlash is delighted that a jury decided it is no longer appropriate to prosecute people based on consensual adult sexual activity. We support the rights of adults to participate in all consensual sexual activities and to watch, read and create any fictional interpretation of such in any media. We will continue to raise awareness of the unseen consequences of these draconian laws, provide legal advice and defend those same consenting adults caught up in the Extreme Pornography and Obscene Publication laws. Myles Jackman, solicitor at Hodge Jones Allen with a specialist interest in obscenity cases states: This case shows the Obscene Publications Act is no longer effective in the age of the internet. See also Obscenity trial: the law is not suitable for a digital age from guardian.co.uk by Myles Jackman. Jerry Barnett, Chairman of the Adult Industry Trade Association (AITA), says: We congratulate Michael Peacock on his victory. The idea that depictions of consenting adult sexual activity can be deemed obscene is a throwback to an earlier age. The adult industry continues to develop and adopt technologies that prevent children from accessing sexual content. We see no need for adults to be protected from it — a free society should protect the rights of adults to participate in any consenting sexual act they choose. In the Press The judgement seems to have captured little attention from the newspapers with the exception of the Guardian/Observer which has published several items about the news. See article from guardian.co.uk Feona Attwood of Sheffield Hallam University, who lectures in sex, communication and culture, and who attended the trial, said: I think the law does not make sense. All the evidence that was heard was about whether the material had the ability to harm and corrupt. The question now is, what does that actually mean? What is significant is that the jury understood [the issues at stake]. Attwood, like others experts in the field, believes that the law has been overtaken by new understandings of the way in which people think about sexuality and the depiction of sex including whether a process actually exits that leads to moral corruption. Others who have been deeply critical of the attempted prosecution include solicitor and New Statesman legal blogger David Allen Green. Writing during the case he said: Obscenity is a curious criminal offence, and many would say that it now has no place in a modern liberal society, especially when all that is being portrayed in any obscene material are the consensual (if unusual) sexual acts between adults. See also It’s time to abolish the obscenity law from newstatesman.com by Nichi Hodgson See also Obscenity trial ends from sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com by Dr Brooke Magnanti See also An end to Obscenity Law? from janefae.wordpress.com by Jane Fae And from the not so delighted Few nutter campaigners have commented so far. From article at bbc.co.uk. The BBC prompted a few words from Vivienne Pattison Mediawatch-UK said the Obscene Publications Act needed to be tightened up. Its director Vivienne Pattison says the case illustrates the problem with the act: There is not a list which says what is obscene and what is not. It makes it incredibly difficult to get a conviction on that. As a society we are moving to a place where porn is considered as kind of fun between consenting adults, but porn is damaging.

Obscenity Trial of the Decade…Jury clears gay fisting, urolagnia and BDSM DVDs of obscenity

Read more UK Legal News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from solicitorsjournal.com

Michael Peacock has been acquitted of all charges after a unanimous jury decision to find Peacock not guilty on 6 counts of obscenity. Michael Peacock (referred to in the gay porn world as Sleazy Michael) had been charged for distributing supposedly obscene DVDs including representation of gay fisting, urolagnia and BDSM. The trial was heard before the Southwark Crown Court. The films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five fingers of the fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia (in this case men urinating in their clothes, onto each others’ bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in this case hard whipping, the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and electrical torture). Also there was an example of a staged non consensual scene. The Obscene Publications Act 1959 features the contentious and ambiguous deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is obscene if it tends to deprave and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener. The Test is defined in Section1 of the Act as: 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. Peacock was represented by Nigel Richardson and Sandra Paul of Hodge Jones and Allen Myles Jackman, a solicitor specialising in obscenity law, said this outcome was a significant victory for common sense suggesting that the OPA has been rendered irrelevant in the digital age. In a tweet, Jackman said that SCD9, the Metropolitan Police unit dealing with human exploitation and organised crime, will meet with the Crown Prosecution Service and the British Board of Film Classification to review guidelines on obscenity. And of course the authorities will be considering whether the law itself now needs changing. No doubt nutter campaigners will now be pushing for something new to replace the OPA now that it no longer supports their censorial views. So what may be the outcome at least in terms of BBFC censorship of R18s? The BBFC have been cutting all such material citing the current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act. But now of course this will change. The BBFC will still be at liberty to cut scenes off their own bat. And indeed the board has been regularly cutting scenes involving penetration by objects that could possibly result in harm justified via its own guidelines. I think there will be a few changes welcomed by all sides. The current prohibition of female squirting leaves everyone totally baffled as to why. This prohibition can now be rapidly dropped. Perhaps urolagnia can now be generally allowed albeit with restrictions when it is considered by the censors to be degrading. Perhaps something similar with fisting which could be generally allowed with a proviso that it must not be seen to be causing any discomfort to those participating. The BDSM issue is not going to be easy. The current ban is at least easy to explain. To allow any level of hurt beyond trifling may prove very difficult to define. Maybe it is still banned by legislation examined during the notable Spanner Case, the judgement of which basically disallows people from giving consent to be hurt. So perhaps the BBFC will just switch justifications but continue to ban BDSM. And I don’t suppose that the non-consensual scene will impact BBFC guidelines at all. This will no doubt continue to be banned from R18s.

Obscenity Trial of the Decade…Contested jury trial seems to be accepted as a test case to decide on the legality of depictions of fisting, urolagnia and BDSM

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from obscenitylawyer.blogspot.com

The 3rd January 2012 marks the first day of the most significant obscenity trial of the decade; which will ultimately clarify the law on the representation of gay fisting, urolagnia as well as BDSM. The defendant in the case, Michael Peacock, is charged on indictment with numerous offences under the Obscene Publications Act for distributing supposedly obscene DVDs. The Obscene Publications Act 1959 features the contentious and ambiguous deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is obscene if it tends to deprave and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener. The Test is defined in Section1 of the Act as: 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. In this trial, which will be heard before the Southwark Crown Court, the films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five fingers of the fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia (in this case men urinating in their clothes, onto each others’ bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in this case hard whipping, the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and electrical torture). These activities feature on the current list of what the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) currently consider to be obscene. Ultimately though, it is a matter for a jury to decide whether these acts are obscene by virtue of whether they deprave and corrupt the viewer. Interestingly this case seems to have found unofficial tacit support from the BBFC; and the Metropolitan Police’s Abusive and Extreme Images Unit (the Met’s old obscene publications squad is now part of SCD9): on the basis that this case will establish whether the depiction of fisting and urination pornography is legal or not. Hence, if the jury decides that such pornography is not obscene, on the basis that it does not deprave and corrupt the viewer; then it is entirely likely that both the producers and distributors of pornography will make such material available for sale, for example via licensed sex shops. Consequently, this significant obscenity prosecution will either reaffirm or rearrange the boundaries of obscenity law. Mr Peacock is represented by  Hodge Jones and Allen LLP.. …Read the full article

Private Chat…Police bring obscenity charges over online private chat

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from theregister.co.uk by Jane Fae Ozimek

As already reported by The Register, Kent Police are in the process of using the Obscene Publications Act as a means to prosecute an individual, Gavin Smith, of Swanscombe for publishing obscenity in respect of a log of a private online chat he had with another individual. This case has now been given the green light to proceed. Due to reporting restrictions, theregister.co.uk are unable to give any further details of the alleged content of the conversation at this point in time. The legal principle at stake here is whether internet chat constitutes publication in the ordinary sense of the word, or can be treated as private conversation. If the former is the conclusion, then anyone with even a passing interest in more extreme fantasies (not just underage, but also BDSM, rape and other matters currently covered by the extreme porn laws) may need to be very careful in respect of any online conversations they have in future. IRC will no longer be quite the refuge of the bizarre and the outlandish it once was. Yesterday’s hearing, before magistrates in Gravesend (the date was moved from May 6) resulted in the date of a committal hearing being agreed for 9 July. At that time, a judge may decide that the case has no legal merit. Otherwise, a date will then be set for trial, and the seriousness of this matter will escalate another notch. …See full article

Police bring obscenity charges over online chat

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from theregister.co.uk by Jane Fae Ozimek

Kent Police have charged an individual with nine offences under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (OPA) in a case that could potentially see online chat in the UK subjected to a much stricter regulation regime. A Kent Police spokeswoman confirmed to The Register it had brought the charges against the individual, and that these charges relate to online chat. The individual is also charged with two offences of making indecent images of children and four of possessing indecent images of children. They have been bailed pending their next court appearance at Dartford magistrates on 6 May. The implications of this case, if it proceeds, could be legal dynamite. At present, under the Obscene Publications Act, a publication is obscene if its overall effect is to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely … to read, see or hear it. For the purposes of the law, publication appears to involve distribution, circulation, selling or giving an article to a third party. The idea that a conversation – albeit one embodied in text chat – can be considered to be published would be fairly radical. …See full article