CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘Obscenity’ Category

PRESS RELEASE: Schlock Horror! Stafford jury acquits fantasy porn defendant: “PRESS RELEASE: Schlock Horror! Stafford jury acquits fantasy porn defendant
By Nick | Published: January 7, 2011

For immediate release

Schlock Horror! Stafford jury acquits fantasy porn defendant

Prosecutors fail first test case to make mock erotic murder scenes illegal.

Kevin Webster, who downloaded erotic fantasy images with violent themes from the internet, (1) was found not guilty of possession of ‘extreme pornography’ (2) at Stafford Crown Court today. The jury were asked to decide whether obviously faked death images were in fact ‘realistic’ depictions of sexual violence; despite the prosecution having to accept, before the trial even began, that the images were clearly ‘staged’. In a victory for common sense and free speech the jury unanimously acquitted Mr Webster of all charges.

Mr Webster’s solicitor Myles Jackman of Audu and Co, who has now successfully defended a number of extreme pornography prosecutions (3), said: ‘The jury’s clear and unequivocal message is a damning blow to the credibility of the ill-conceived and prurient extreme pornography legislation. It has previously led to the state prosecuting the possession of dirty-jokes; and in Mr Webster’s case what were clearly unrealistic high-camp horror fantasy images’.

Expert witness Prof Feona Attwood of Sheffield Hallam University described the images in question as ‘less realistic than a British soap opera.’

According to Alexandra Dymock of Backlash, (4) the sexual civil liberties organisation who put Mr Webster in contact with his specialist legal team, said: ‘This ill-conceived, insufficiently researched and poorly written law has now been shown to be not only a waste of valuable legal aid and police resources, but that it is also out of step with the attitudes of ordinary members of the British public in the face of reasonable argument, even if they find the material itself distasteful.’

Backlash have petitioned the Coalition to include the extreme porn act in the forthcoming repeal bill and hope Mr Webster’s case illustrates the need for this repressive and intrusive legislation to be removed from the statute books.

Ends

Notes for editors

(1) http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/news/New-laws-test-landmark-trial/article-3065740-detail/article.html

(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/battle-lines-drawn-over-bill-to-ban-extreme-porn-1216231.html

(3) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/06/tiger_freed/

(4) Backlash http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ is an umbrella organisation providing legal, academic and campaigning resources defending freedom of sexual expression.

Regulating Sex, a seminar on sex and regulation will take place at the British Academy in London on 1 February 2011 from 1400 to 1700. The seminar focuses on the regulation of sex in relation to three key areas: media, labour and the internet.

Speakers
* Laura Agustin, author of Sex at the Margins: Migration, Labour Markets and the Rescue Industry (2007)
* Yaman Akdeniz, author of Internet Child Pornography and the Law (2008)
* Martin Barker, author of The Video Nasties (1984), Ill Effects: The Media-Violence Debate (2001), and The Crash Controversy (2001)
Julian Petley, author of Censoring the Word (2007) and Censorship: A Beginner’s Guide (2009) will introduce and chair the event.

The British Academy is located at 10 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AH , adjacent to the Duke of York steps leading to the Mall.

Nearest tube: Charing Cross (Cockspur Street exit), Piccadilly Circus (Lower Regent Street exit)
Buses: Piccadilly Circus, Lower Regent Street, Haymarket, Trafalgar Square
Wheelchair access: The British Academy has access for most wheelchairs.

The seminar is organized by the AHRC funded Onscenity research network. If you would like to attend, let Feona Attwood know before 20 January: f.attwood [at] shu.ac.uk. She will confirm you have a place.

7 Bit Torrent Piracy Suits Target 5,469: “In one of the largest swoops targeting bit torrent piracy, numerous suits were filed Friday against 5,469 suspected of poaching porn off the Internet.”

(Via XBIZ.com | News & Articles.)

3 More Adult Companies Sue 1,100 Bit Torrent Users: “1,100 John Does were targeted in three separate suits waged by CP Productions Inc., First Time Videos and Future Blue Inc.”

(Via XBIZ.com | News & Articles.)

Kent police bring obscenity charge over online chat: “

Court hearing next week

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.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Welsh police come down hard on Octopussy porn: “

Man accused of possessing extreme porn

A man appeared before Swansea magistrates this week accused of possessing extreme porn images, including one which allegedly shows ‘a person performing an act of intercourse with a dead animal, namely a squid.’…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Mucky private chat could be illegal soon: “

Risky encounters of the IRC and Twitter kind

Could 2010 be the year when the authorities finally clamp down on the internet – and in the process abolish some fundamental liberties we have been taking for granted for a very long time? The answer from two cases – one now over, though possibly subject to appeal, the other going forward to a full hearing later this year – could be a very worrying affirmative.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

129

16.02.2010

Press release issued by the Registrar

Chamber judgment1

Akdas v. Turkey (no 41056/04)

SEIZURE OF THE NOVEL Les ONZE MILLE verges BY Guillaume Apollinaire and conviction of the publisher hindered public access to a work belonging to the european literary heritage

Unanimously:

Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)

of the European Convention on Human Rights

Principal facts

The applicant, Mr Rahmi Akdaş, was born in 1958 and lives in Bandırma. He is a publisher and in 1999 published the Turkish translation of the erotic novel Les onze mille verges by the French writer Guillaume Apollinaire (“The Eleven Thousand Rods” – On Bir Bin Kırbaç in Turkish), which contains graphic descriptions of scenes of sexual intercourse, with various practices such as sadomasochism or vampirism.

Mr Akdaş was convicted under the Criminal Code for publishing obscene or immoral material liable to arouse and exploit sexual desire among the population. The applicant argued that the book was a work of fiction, using literary techniques such as exaggeration or metaphor, and that the postface to the edition in question was written by specialists in literary analysis. He added that the book did not contain any violent overtones and that the humorous and exaggerated nature of the text was more likely to extinguish sexual desire.

The seizure and destruction of all copies of the book was ordered and the applicant was given a “heavy” fine – a fine that may be converted into days of imprisonment – of 684,000,000 Turkish liras (equivalent to approximately 1,100 euros). In a final judgment of 11 March 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the part of the judgment concerning the order to destroy copies of the book, in view of a 2003 legislative amendment. It upheld the remainder of the judgment.

Mr Akdaş paid the fine in full in November 2004.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

Relying on Article 10, the applicant complained about his conviction as publisher of the novel Les onze mille verges by Guillaume Apollinaire and about the seizure of the book.

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 September 2004.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal),
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy),
Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania),
Dragoljub Popović (Serbia),
András Sajó (Hungary),
Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Judges,

and also Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

It was not disputed that there had been an interference, that the interference had been prescribed by law and that it had pursued a legitimate aim, namely the protection of morals. The Court further reiterated that those who promoted artistic works also had “duties and responsibilities”, the scope of which depended on the situation and the means used.

The requirements of morals varied from time to time and from place to place, even within the same State. The national authorities were therefore in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of those requirements, as well as on the “necessity” of a “restriction” intended to satisfy them.

Nevertheless, the Court had regard in the present case to the fact that more then a century had elapsed since the book had first been published in France (in 1907), to its publication in various languages in a large number of countries and to the recognition it had gained through publication in the prestigious “La Pléiade” series. Acknowledgment of the cultural, historical and religious particularities of the Council of Europe’s member States could not go so far as to prevent public access in a particular language, in this instance Turkish, to a work belonging to the European literary heritage.

Accordingly, the application of the legislation in force at the time of the events had not been intended to satisfy a pressing social need. In addition, the heavy fine imposed and the seizure of copies of the book had not been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and had thus not been necessary in a democratic society, within the meaning of Article 10. There had therefore been a violation of that provision.

The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s other complaints.

Since the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction within the time allowed, there was no need to make any award on that account.

***

The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Press contacts
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or

Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04)
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70)

Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)

Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)

Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.

1 Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.

China Bans ‘Pornographic’ Online Literature: “Chinese authorities have banned 1,414 works of online literature, saying all of it was deemed obscene.”

By Rhett Pardon, Tuesday, Oct 27, 2009

BEIJING — Chinese authorities have banned 1,414 works of online literature, saying all of it was deemed obscene.

Official news agency Xinhua said that the banned works either “included pornographic content,” “used provocative or privacy-violating titles to draw attention” or “blatantly talked about one-night stands, wife swapping, sex abuses and violence that disregarded common decency.”

The ban, authorized by the General Administration of Press and Publication and decided by 50 “experts,” affects about 30,000 links, Xinhua said.

That agency, according to Xinhua, also plans to establish laws and regulations on the publishing of literature online.

(Via XBIZ.com | News & Articles.)

Ruling Likely to Upset Obscenity Prosecutions: “Prosecutors will have to work much harder reaching a Internet obscenity convictions after Wednesday’s ruling by the 9th Circuit.”

By Rhett Pardon, Thursday, Oct 29, 2009

See further 9th Circuit: Obscenity Should Be Defined by U.S. Community Standards, Wednesday, Oct 28, 2009.

SAN FRANCISCO — Wednesday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided that a national community standard to define Internet obscenity is more appropriate than a local one, is likely to upset government prosecutions.

Gary Jay Kaufman of The Kaufman Law Group, who argued the 9th Circuit case along with Greg Piccionelli of Piccionelli & Sarno, told XBIZ that the opinion makes the Miller test obsolete as to Internet and email obscenity prosecutions in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, which is the second-highest court in the nation covering the Western states.

The Miller test, developed in the 1973 case Miller vs. California, looks at three points for obscenity prosecutions.

The test asks whether the work as a whole appeals to the prurient interest, whether the work is patently offensive and whether the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Kaufman said that with the ruling prosecutors will have to work much harder reaching a conviction.

“Now the most conservative jurisdictions will no longer be able to dictate what is acceptable for the rest of the country,” he said.

Kaufman said that the government now can’t cherry pick jurisdictions in which they think they can obtain a conviction based upon the standards of that local community.

“Now, even if a case is brought in a very conservative jurisdiction, the jury will be instructed that they must apply standards for obscenity, outside of their community – i.e. what is accepted generally on the Internet nationwide,” he said.

But the Los Angeles-based industry attorney said that with a national standard it still is feasible for a jury hearing an Internet obscenity case.

“I also believe that it would be next to impossible for a court to articulate exactly what that standard is,” he said. “Each jury will have to decide a case based on testimony and evidence as to what are the standards nationwide and on the Internet.

“This can be done by expert witnesses as well as simple demonstrations by counsel to the jury.”

On Thursday, it wasn’t clear whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. XBIZ calls to the agency weren’t returned by post time.

The case is U.S. vs. Jeffrey Kilbride and U.S. vs. James Schaffer, 07-10528.

(Via XBIZ.com | News & Articles.)