Entertainment For Lively Minds
Obscenity trial. Text is possibly NSFW.
Posted by Bob on 5 January 2012 - 12:28pm.
I've been casually following the obscenity trial currently being heard at Southwark Crown Court (and mentioned a lot on Twitter by David Allen Green, who does the excellent Jack Of Kent blog). Briefly, it concerns a defendant - Michael Peacock - who is charged with distributing "obscene" material on DVD.
Continues in comments.
- More from Bob.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Continued...
The reason for the charge of "obscenity" is that the DVD contains images of, among other things, gay fisting, urolagnia and BDSM. (If you're not sure what any of those are, details are in the link above.)
I find it bizarre and anachronistic that there should be any law of "obscenity" with regard to sexual acts between consenting adults, to be honest. I'm a bit of a free speech nut (as evidenced on the last rehearsal of the "wearing a poppy" argument a few months ago), and think that what consenting adults get up to on their own time shouldn't generally be a matter for the law, although I accept that where sadism and masochism are concerned there are issues about harm and violence.
But if adults can broadly get their (consensual) kicks in any way they damn please (and none of the above are illegal if done consensually, except possibly where serious harm occurs), can't they also watch other people similarly divesting themselves of their rocks on the audio-visual-entertainment-système of their choice?
(Just as long as nobody shows any santorum being ejected, I'm fine with it. Whatever floats your boat.)
What do the Massive think? It strikes me that "obscenity" essentially means "I think it's nasty, therefore it shouldn't be allowed". Doesn't it?
Spot on, Bob
Not my bag, but fail to discern any particularly compelling arguments why it should be any concern to anyone else as long as a) it's between consenting adults b) clearly labelled so that potential purchasers know what they're getting and c) restricted to sex shops.
Saw a retweet earlier that contained the line "A wee bit of everyone's freedom is at stake." I hope that's deliberate and not by a blithely unaware Scotsman.
.
the idea that anyone can get so exercised about what consenting adults do to each other in private that they wish to prosecute and possibly imprison, instead of expending all that righteous energy on trying to do something about, say, the fact that millions of people worldwide don't have safe drinking water, is frankly....I was going to say staggering, but to be honest, it's not really that surprising is it? Sometimes I despair, I really do.
The capacity...
...of people to get their knickers in a bunch about sex and sexual politics never fails to amaze me.
Look at the Republican presidential candidates in the US right now. All of them are for choice, small government and laissez-faire policies (No to evil social engineering like free healthcare! School vouchers! Leave corporations alone! How dare you think to legislate on gun ownership!). Right up until you introduce the subject of a woman's right to choose. Or a man's right to marry another man. THEN it's all "this is a job for the GOVERNMENT! Ban ban ban!" It's so weird, and so totally inconsistent.
And of ALL the many and seemingly random prohibitions set out (and mostly and routinely ignored by everyone) in the Bible, why is it man-on-man love that gets the religious right so upset? I don't see them protesting outside seafood restaurants.
At least the Republicans don't stand a chance this year
now, back to the crime of selling porn in Olde Blightety...
God, I hope you're right.
Bad flashback ahoy!
I seem to remember saying those exact words in relation to Reagan and Dubya.
Never, ever
Underestimate the ability of the Democrats to screw up.
I think Obama wins, but it's tight.
I have said this before WRT other posts...
I have said this before WRT other posts, but yet again, where is the 100 ups option when I need it?
Really, havent politicians got more important things to concern themselves with?
Well said maggie, consider this old sailor a partner in despair.
I'm surprised that prosecutions like this
are still being brought given that this stuff is, presumably, freely available on the Internet to anyone who wants it. Is this not another case of the judicial system lagging behing the 'real world'?
I think
it was WC Fields who said "as long as you don't do in the streets and scare the horses".
He was
so proud of the comment he said it twice
Is Michael Peacock
a licensed shop owner or is he selling the DVDs out on the streets? I can't see that part anywhere.
Me either.
I gather he was the publisher/distributor. Selling them on the streets would in any case be a separate offence, wouldn't it? One of selling bongo films sans licence?
I can't walk down Camden High Street
without some shifty looking bloke unwrapping a blanket on a street corner, filled with fisting DVDs.
It has no bearing on my opinion
(that this case is a waste of money) I'd just like to know if this is part of several cases that will also mean a prosecution for unlicensed sale of material or why he was chosen out of the many shops that sell it.
Maybe
breach of copyright for distributing George Michael's home movies without permission?
And at the risk of trivialising an important issue...
Is he an example of nominative determinism?
More so
if his first name was Chris.
nominative determinism - ATM
Serious comment folks.
Would someone please enlighten me as to what nominative determinism is?
many thanks,
Les.
It's when...
...your name predicts what you end up doing for a living. Like Bob Flowerdew ending up as a gardener. Or - Shepherd's Bush Massive inna area - Michael K. Vegfruit becoming a greengrocer. Or David Slimylyingtwat becoming Prime Minister.
It's about your name being an influencer on aspects of your job
So if your surname is Law and you become a policeman. Or your name is Baker and you make cakes etc.
I think it may be tosh and based upon you noticing the 1 in 1000 random but supporting name and job combinations whilst ignoring the fact that Denis Law was a footballer and Hilda Baker an actress.
... and Lenny Law
is a dentist.
AND
Bad Company were anything but, but then again Free were not!
it ain't necessarily so
Otto Pfister is one of Germany's most successful football coaches
I bet when he was a player
he got penalised a lot for handling in the area.
Obscenity shouldn't be confused with..
.. things which in other circumstances constitute assault. Then the whole 'consenting adults' thing becomes a problem for the law. Just because you don't mind somebody nailing your old fella to the ceiling doesn't mean its legal. And I guess filming this and selling it extrapolates the problem.
Mind you that would presumably bring an end to 'Jackass' and the rest of them as well.
A minefield, but I would say specifically in this case worrying only in the abstract sense that British law is generally judge-made on the basis of precedent as much as legislation.
As Jimmy says above it might be that he isn't a licensed sex shop owner so its possibly just trading laws he fallen wrong side of which is why they need to establish what sort of material it is.
My sister was a law researcher for ages and she came across one bloke who was painted orange ("You've been Tango'ed") and subjected to all manner of painful indignities by his friends on his 21st. They were prosecuted - and convicted - of aggravated assault. The thing was he was sat all alone by himself in the pub every night, bereft, until they came out again.
It's not trading laws.
He's being prosecuted for obscenity. The issue is the content of the DVD.
God alone knows then
All I can think is that there might be a case for saying - if people are being abused injured or worse in xyz fashion then the argument 'its nobody elses business and you can get it on the internet' doesn't hold up.
But then who decides? Is this a test case does anyone know?
It's very much a test case.
It'll provide precedent on exactly these issues.
By the way, my favourite phrase of the day has to be "the four-finger rule". I want the judge to say it and be recorded saying it so I can use it as a ringtone.
Maybe he could argue
that he was using them purely for research purposes for his forthcoming autobiography.
Quite.
And in the circumstances I would like to withdraw (ugh) my use of the word "ringtone".
Yu now ow me one
kybrd, du to cffee an pan aurasin ingrss btwn kys.
"the four-finger rule"
TMFTL Surely ???
Old joke
Q: Whats the difference between Joan Collins and a Kit Kat?
A: You only get 4 fingers in a Kit Kat.
Tell the law to keep out of our domestic confectionery digital arrangements, thank you.
Incidentally...
...it's true that someone nailing your nob to something is illegal in this country, because - God, I love Wikipedia! - there is no provision in English law whereby you can consent to being injured. Of course, I suppose the issue there is what constitutes injury? Because you could be done for assault for slapping someone in "everyday" life, but what about for spanking someone in a sexual context? It's a strange grey area. (Although, admittedly, someone driving a nail through your old chap is pretty unambiguous!)
I've never been spanked in a strange grey area
Though I did once have it off in Telford
Telford
I spent a fortnight in Telford one weekend.
"driving a nail through your old chap is pretty unambiguous"
Yet - as far as I know anyway - it's perfectly legal to go and get it pierced.
That occurred to me.
When is an injury not an injury? It can't be permanence that's the issue, because plenty of piercings and body modifications are more or less permanent. I suppose suffering must be the test of it. But then, isn't some degree of suffering the whole point of sexual sadism and masochism?
Incidentally, there's no bad time to post this:
(Peter Cook - biased judge sketch)
Hang on
So consensual multidigit (where "multi-" shall mean any number greater than than four) prostatic stimulation is a legal no-no but Vin Diesel - or even our very own Liam Neeson - blasting a succession of unfortunate persons' faces off with a semi-automatic weapon is fine and dandy?
How does that work, exactly?
Search me.
Although ideally not internally, thanks all the same.
Dead right Archie
The same point made by Colonel Kurtz in 'Apocalypse Now'
And this is what keeps lawyers, judges, civil liberties activists, legislators in gainful and unending employ...
That Daily Mail online (not them again) had a headline this week about how shocked it was about all the nudity in 'Sherlock' - and posted pictures of all the scenes it was disapproving of.
Oh for God's sake!
What's happened to our education system? It's all gone to the dogs.
It should be, "of which it was disapproving".
Tsk, tsk, harrumph etc.
Well...
"A semi-automatic, or self-loading firearm is a weapon which performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing—assuming cartridges remain in the weapon's feed device or magazine. Typically, this includes extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the weapon's firing chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber..."
I'm here most weeks...
Not quite
one is simulation, while the other is stim...you get my point
Wasn't there a test case a few years back?
A bunch of gay chaps who were in the habit of nailing each others' winkies to a coffee-table. It was all about what constitutes assault and consent.
I believe
they all went down too...
^^^ Do you see what I di-
Yes, you do, obviously.
Operation Spanner
A sad indictment of English justice.
But hold the front page! Branding has been ruled as OK. Get those irons in the fire...
A quick visit to the law - apologies in advance
Consent not a defence to assault - R v Brown (Anthony Joseph)(1993)
Consent is a defence to branding - R v Wilson (Alan Thomas)(1997)
OK, I do this for a living (not S&M, the law). These sorts of fine distinctions keep some of my brethren in a job!
I have always found it amusing that young solicitors who spend their time doing commercial work in city law firms and wouldn't know where a magistrates court is, can be relied upon to remember details of the Brown case. Rumour has it in old libraries the book with Brown reported in detail will fall open at that page if the book is placed on it's spine.
Just reading
The thing made my eyes water
line in the sand
Asking someone to nail your old fella to the coffee table.
Those are pretty much the exact co-ordinates at which 21st century existential ennui hits the tipping point.
One of the many funny things...
...about this case is that there will be, somewhere, a person to whom it has never occurred that it might be possible to re-enact the Sooty & Sweep Show using one's partner as a prop. And this case, covered in the mainstream media, will introduce them to that concept, whereas they would never otherwise have heard of or seen the DVD in question...
Love the idea of some wide-eyed innocent Googling "fisting" after reading about this in New Statesman or - better - Church Times (who *are* covering it, if that's... ew... the word I'm looking for), and going "HELL FUZZY YES! That sounds AMAZING! I had never CONSIDERED it! Why did nobody TELL me?"
Before rushing out and buying a pair of marigolds and a big tub of E45.
Don't forget the elastic band
To show the high-water mark, as it were..
Oh I don't know Bob
The Daily Mail, et al. explained it to them around 20 years ago after this incident:
I never saw the outrageousness of that
At the time Mr Lamont was a much-derided figure, even (especially?) among Tory supporters and their press. His refusal to resign on principle * meant he basically deserved the pasting he subsequently got: if he wasn't going to go honourably, then he was d*mn well going to go dishonourably.
* when the UK was unceremoniously ejected from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, which was a central plank of Government policy at the time. Too boring to go into the details.
ERM
Ah me... an obsession of mine.
Lamont destroyed the Tory reputation for fiscal responsibility the same way John Major destroyed their reputation for gravitas and good sense. Regardless of whether he was having his prostate manipulated.
This ultimately let in Labour with a MASSIVE swing in 1997 - which at the time I was very excited about,
Seems rather naive now as they seem to have thought they could outsmart the City, for the first time for a Lab govt. 13 years of accelerated plunder ensued...
a big tub of E45?
a big tub of E45?
All very messy.
May I be allowed to suggest KY jelly?
KY is crap
Chivers Tangerine rules.
Or if you have a pork pie to hand...
I love Jack's comment
Genuine laugh out loud. "If I might interject a note of caution"
It all reminds me of idiots like..
Gail Dines, who cites the absolute extreme edges of violent porn to bolster her argument, but won't tell us what IS acceptable, which, if we dug deeper would be absolutely nothing.
Not guilty.
And quite right too.
Loved JoK's Tweet:
"Sooty and Emu now in emotional scenes outside Southwark Crown Court"