Obscenity law in doubt after jury acquits distributor of gay pornography {uk}

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/07/obscene-publications-act-future-doubt


Michael Peacock at Southwark Crown Court during the case, brought under the Obscene Publications Act. Photograph: Lewis Whyld/PA

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.

The case, at Southwark crown court, threatens to have implications far beyond the acquittal of pornographer Michael Peacock, who ran a mail-order business and had been targeted by an undercover vice officer.

Officials at the British Board of Film Classification, as well as police officers involved in prosecuting obscenity cases, have admitted that the current laws on what is obscene may require a major rethink.

[Quartermass]

1. Good news.

While I do find some stuff disgusting, it's none of my business if somebody else likes to be disgusted in the privacy of their own home. It's nobody else's business either. You may not like it, but so what. As long as they keep it private and to themselves, and as long as it's between two consenting adults that aren't harming anyone, there should be no problems.

It's all about choice, and allowing people to have their own choice.

[saras]

2. Actually, good porn is repraving, not DEpraving at all.

[William769]

3. Good news.