Four fingers good, five fingers better
January 6, 2012 7:06 AM Subscribe
England's Obscenity Trial of the Decade is over, with unanimous Not Guilty verdicts being returned for all 6 charges. R v Peacock was a rare outing for the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and its out-lawing of media which depraves and corrupts, and despite being shown DVDs of explicit homosexual acts, fisting, testicular torture, rape scenes, prolaspses and other acts the prosecution described as extreme the jury decided the material didn't breech the law. Alex d. live tweeted the proceeding and Peacock's supprters are celebratory. The question now is what is obscene in today's society, and is the act still relevant.
'to deprave means to make morally bad, to debase or to corrupt morally. To corrupt means to render morally unsound or rotten, to destroy the moral purity or chastity, to pervert or ruin a good quality; to debase; to defile it.'
'to deprave means to make morally bad, to debase or to corrupt morally. To corrupt means to render morally unsound or rotten, to destroy the moral purity or chastity, to pervert or ruin a good quality; to debase; to defile it.'
Had the jury found against Peacock, would the Crown be on trial next for having depraved and corrupted the jury? And if the Crown would have argued that the jury had not been depraved and corrupted, then what would that have said about the first verdict?
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:18 AM on January 6, 2012 [12 favorites]
posted by Sticherbeast at 7:18 AM on January 6, 2012 [12 favorites]
"despite being shown"?
That's a pretty editorial statement there. Perhaps a better wording would be "and having been shown DVDs..."
I can't help but wonder if the pervasiveness of porn on the internet had something to do with this decision. Hard to find an individual guilty of ruining the morals of a world which has moral-ruination available in droves in any household with a computer and broadband connection.
posted by hippybear at 7:19 AM on January 6, 2012 [1 favorite]
That's a pretty editorial statement there. Perhaps a better wording would be "and having been shown DVDs..."
I can't help but wonder if the pervasiveness of porn on the internet had something to do with this decision. Hard to find an individual guilty of ruining the morals of a world which has moral-ruination available in droves in any household with a computer and broadband connection.
posted by hippybear at 7:19 AM on January 6, 2012 [1 favorite]
Well, it was GAY porn. Only the straight porn is depraved.
posted by Goofyy at 7:23 AM on January 6, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Goofyy at 7:23 AM on January 6, 2012 [1 favorite]
It's media like FOX News that depraves and corrupts.
posted by scrowdid at 7:25 AM on January 6, 2012 [3 favorites]
posted by scrowdid at 7:25 AM on January 6, 2012 [3 favorites]
Had the jury found against Peacock, would the Crown be on trial next for having depraved and corrupted the jury?
Ah, the "Ultimate Recursive Defense." Pope Stephen VII (or, sometimes VI) used this against prior (and dead) Pope Formosus -- since Formosus had been a Bishop before being Pope, his authority as Pope was void, voiding Stephen's own status as bishop, meaning that Stephen was legitimate. Hurrah!
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:27 AM on January 6, 2012 [7 favorites]
Ah, the "Ultimate Recursive Defense." Pope Stephen VII (or, sometimes VI) used this against prior (and dead) Pope Formosus -- since Formosus had been a Bishop before being Pope, his authority as Pope was void, voiding Stephen's own status as bishop, meaning that Stephen was legitimate. Hurrah!
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:27 AM on January 6, 2012 [7 favorites]
The case's title made me think of this and for that you suffer.
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:31 AM on January 6, 2012
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:31 AM on January 6, 2012
Rupert Bear could not be reacher for comment, but close friends say that he feels quietly vindicated.
posted by Jehan at 7:31 AM on January 6, 2012
posted by Jehan at 7:31 AM on January 6, 2012
The Obscene Publications Act 1959 is depraved and corrupting. It debases that whole country. Censorship of any kind is morally corrupt.
posted by fuq at 7:42 AM on January 6, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by fuq at 7:42 AM on January 6, 2012 [2 favorites]
I want to see the science which demonstrates unambiguously what does and does not deprave and corrupt. I'm sure that's been properly provided, reviewed and consulted by all involved parties in these cases, right?
While I wait for that, dear judiciary: don't you fucking dare have the ineffable presumption to tell me what will deprave and corrupt me.
posted by Decani at 8:00 AM on January 6, 2012
While I wait for that, dear judiciary: don't you fucking dare have the ineffable presumption to tell me what will deprave and corrupt me.
posted by Decani at 8:00 AM on January 6, 2012
The Obscene Publications Act #1954 had much better fisting scenes.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:06 AM on January 6, 2012
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 8:06 AM on January 6, 2012
At least they weren't shown 4chan.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 8:06 AM on January 6, 2012
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 8:06 AM on January 6, 2012
"despite being shown"?
That's a pretty editorial statement there. Perhaps a better wording would be "and having been shown DVDs..."
Apologies. This wasn't intentional. Your wording is indeed better. I'm no fan of the OP Act and hadn't intended to make any value judgement as regards these particular films, which I haven't seen and have only read reports of.
posted by samworm at 8:10 AM on January 6, 2012
That's a pretty editorial statement there. Perhaps a better wording would be "and having been shown DVDs..."
Apologies. This wasn't intentional. Your wording is indeed better. I'm no fan of the OP Act and hadn't intended to make any value judgement as regards these particular films, which I haven't seen and have only read reports of.
posted by samworm at 8:10 AM on January 6, 2012
I think "desipite being shown" was reasonable. There is a clear argument to be made that these acts would have been judged to be depraved on previous occasions, and that thus the new ruling demonstrates a change in perceptions and interpretation. The "despite being shown" is applicable to this rather than as an editorial comment on the desirability or otherwise of violent genital contact.
posted by biffa at 8:30 AM on January 6, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by biffa at 8:30 AM on January 6, 2012 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: prolaspses and other acts
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:01 AM on January 6, 2012
posted by CynicalKnight at 9:01 AM on January 6, 2012
Then what you want jonmc is preprolapse porn.
posted by srboisvert at 9:33 AM on January 6, 2012
posted by srboisvert at 9:33 AM on January 6, 2012
The word "despite" works (if only because of the "rape scenes", but YMMV). Just because this jury decided that the law had no right to judge their depravity does not mean that they aren't depraved.
Imagine this instead: that the jury decided against an "anti-terrible-hair" law despite being shown clips of Celebrity Apprentice. Both parts of that statement make sense and are not mutually exclusive.
posted by Riki tiki at 9:49 AM on January 6, 2012
Imagine this instead: that the jury decided against an "anti-terrible-hair" law despite being shown clips of Celebrity Apprentice. Both parts of that statement make sense and are not mutually exclusive.
posted by Riki tiki at 9:49 AM on January 6, 2012
Then what you want jonmc is preprolapse porn.
He's a Preprolapsarian?
posted by RokkitNite at 9:58 AM on January 6, 2012
He's a Preprolapsarian?
posted by RokkitNite at 9:58 AM on January 6, 2012
Prolapse porn? I'd like to un-know about this, thanks.
I know, totally. I don't see what's sexy about heart valve replacement surgery at all, but whatever floats your boat...
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:31 AM on January 6, 2012
I know, totally. I don't see what's sexy about heart valve replacement surgery at all, but whatever floats your boat...
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:31 AM on January 6, 2012
I have no idea what prolaspses are, and I have no desire to find out.
posted by slogger at 12:29 PM on January 6, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by slogger at 12:29 PM on January 6, 2012 [1 favorite]
Protip: Prolapse porn...
Okay, I admit it. I got nothin'...
posted by Samizdata at 1:34 PM on January 6, 2012
Okay, I admit it. I got nothin'...
posted by Samizdata at 1:34 PM on January 6, 2012
Four fingers good, five fingers better
Anyway, it isn't really about four or five fingers... it's about getting beyond the wide part of the hand around the base knuckles. That's the real challenge. If the top's hand folds easily, it makes it a bit easier, but that's really the mental hurdle that is difficult to get beyond.
posted by hippybear at 6:22 PM on January 6, 2012
Anyway, it isn't really about four or five fingers... it's about getting beyond the wide part of the hand around the base knuckles. That's the real challenge. If the top's hand folds easily, it makes it a bit easier, but that's really the mental hurdle that is difficult to get beyond.
posted by hippybear at 6:22 PM on January 6, 2012
I'll grant that's rather horrible, mccarty.tim, but maybe makes Katy Perry look more respectable really.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:59 PM on January 6, 2012
posted by jeffburdges at 7:59 PM on January 6, 2012
Urethral sounds? You mean "psssss...."?
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:42 AM on January 7, 2012
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:42 AM on January 7, 2012
« Older A Gross Miscarriage of Justice in Computer Chess | HOLY SH*T MAN WALKS ON F**KING MOON Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I'm really glad I wasn't on that jury. Yikes!
posted by Doleful Creature at 7:17 AM on January 6, 2012