Somearemoreequal (talk | contribs) Undid revision 470666807 by NotoriousQRG (talk) |
NotoriousQRG (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Specialist Lawyers said the ruling may change the material that [[adult film]] producers will make and supply.<ref name=fistingontrial>{{cite news |url= http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/01/peacock-trial-fisting |title= Fisting on Trial |title=Fisting on trial |accessdate=7 January 2012 | date=5 January 2012}}</ref> Sex Worker turned writer Brooke Magnanti (aka [[Belle de Jour (writer)|Belle de Jour]]) said the publishing industry would be relieved by the outcome of the case.<ref> {{cite web |url= http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com/2012/01/obscenity-trial-ends.html |title=Obscenity trial ends |accessdate=7 January 2012 | date=6 January 2012}}</ref> |
Specialist Lawyers said the ruling may change the material that [[adult film]] producers will make and supply.<ref name=fistingontrial>{{cite news |url= http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/01/peacock-trial-fisting |title= Fisting on Trial |title=Fisting on trial |accessdate=7 January 2012 | date=5 January 2012}}</ref> Sex Worker turned writer Brooke Magnanti (aka [[Belle de Jour (writer)|Belle de Jour]]) said the publishing industry would be relieved by the outcome of the case.<ref> {{cite web |url= http://sexonomics-uk.blogspot.com/2012/01/obscenity-trial-ends.html |title=Obscenity trial ends |accessdate=7 January 2012 | date=6 January 2012}}</ref> |
||
Quiet Riot Girl, an expert on gender and sexuality, was more critical of the discourse surrounding the case, espcially in relation to sexual identity. <ref> {{cite web |url= http://graunwatch.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/obscenity-discourse/ |title=Obscenity Discourse |accessdate=8 January 2012 | date=7 January 2012}}</ref> <ref> {{cite web |url= http://zine.openrightsgroup.org/features/2011/puritanism-in-a-permissive-age |title= Puritanism In A Permissive Age? |accessdate=8 January 2012 | date=7 January 2012}}</ref> |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
Revision as of 20:03, 10 January 2012
R vs Peacock (also known by its twitter hashtag #obscenitytrial[1][2]) was an English Crown Court case that was a notable test of the Obscene Publications Act 1959[3]. Michael Peacock, the defendant, was the one of a few people to have pleaded 'not guilty' under the Act and won his or her case. Legal experts said that, following the case, the Obscene Publications Act now "made no sense".[4]
It was also notable as one of the significant early cases in the English courts where live tweeting was a significant source of reporting and publicising the deliberations of the case following the 14 December 2011 guidance from the Lord Chief Justice which allowed tweeting in English Courts.
Details of the case
Michael Peacock, who ran a male escort site called "Sleazy Michael",[5] was charged with six counts under the Obscene Publications Act after an undercover police officer bought DVDs from him featuring a range of explicit sexual acts between men including BDSM (whipping, staged kidnapping and rape play), fisting and urolagnia.[6][7][8] Although the acts shown in the DVD are legal[6] their depiction in films or DVDs falls within the scope of the Obscene Publications Act if a jury felt that the film or DVD could "deprave or corrupt" the viewer.[9] The jury watched large sections of the videos and, within two hours, unanimously found that the films did not "deprave or corrupt" and so found Michael Peacock not guilty on all charges.
Comment on the case
Within days of the case many experts and commentators were highlighting the significance of the case to the approach taken by the state to obscenity in England.
Legal experts said that that the specialist team within the Metropolitan Police would be meeting with the Crown Prosecution Service (the prosecuting authority in England) and the British Board of Film Classification (responsible for film & DVD control and censorship) to review their guidelines.[9][4]
Specialist Lawyers said the ruling may change the material that adult film producers will make and supply.[7] Sex Worker turned writer Brooke Magnanti (aka Belle de Jour) said the publishing industry would be relieved by the outcome of the case.[10]
Quiet Riot Girl, an expert on gender and sexuality, was more critical of the discourse surrounding the case, espcially in relation to sexual identity. [11] [12]
References
- ^ "'Sleazy Michael' wins obscenity trial over fisting DVDs". 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
- ^ "Obscenity trial makes waves in the UK". 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
- ^ "Michael Peacock's acquittal is a victory for sexual freedom". Guardian Newspapers. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
- ^ a b "Obscenity law in doubt after jury acquits distributor of gay pornography". Guardian Newspapers. 7 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
- ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/06/obscenity-trial-law-digital-age
- ^ a b "Not guilty verdict in DVD obscenity trial". BBC. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
- ^ a b "Fisting on trial". 5 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
- ^ http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/opinion/comment/obscenity-trial-shows-outdated-law
- ^ a b "Obscene publication laws guidance to be reviewed". Solicitors Journal. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
- ^ "Obscenity trial ends". 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.
- ^ "Obscenity Discourse". 7 January 2012. Retrieved 8 January 2012.
- ^ "Puritanism In A Permissive Age?". 7 January 2012. Retrieved 8 January 2012.