Grace Dent To Replace Gregg Wallace On...
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
What is obscene?
4 Answers
Reading this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7439740.st m
Reminded me of the legal definition of obscene
"content whose effect will tend to deprave and corrupt those likely to read, see or hear" it.
I've always thought that was a rubbish definition - it relies on the notion that a judge can tell what will deprave another person.
Presumably the Police officers and BBFC people arn't depraved by having to view it all.
But I've never really been able to think of a better definition
Can you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7439740.st m
Reminded me of the legal definition of obscene
"content whose effect will tend to deprave and corrupt those likely to read, see or hear" it.
I've always thought that was a rubbish definition - it relies on the notion that a judge can tell what will deprave another person.
Presumably the Police officers and BBFC people arn't depraved by having to view it all.
But I've never really been able to think of a better definition
Can you?
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's a tough one, because as Larry Flynt's lawyer said, one man's obscenity is indeed another man's art.
I find the conept of invading Iraq obscene, along with the fact that any human on the planet can die of starvation or lack of clean water.
It really is a matter for each individual, and the case was never helped by self-appointed moral guardians like Mary Whitehouse, who simply searched for things to be offended about, and the complained about them - culminating in complaining that The Beatles' 'I Am The Walrus' contained the word 'nickers' - good job she never heard any thrash metal!
I think we have to use broad guidelines about what offends the majority, and legislate around them - but freedom is a two-edged sword at the best of times.
I find the conept of invading Iraq obscene, along with the fact that any human on the planet can die of starvation or lack of clean water.
It really is a matter for each individual, and the case was never helped by self-appointed moral guardians like Mary Whitehouse, who simply searched for things to be offended about, and the complained about them - culminating in complaining that The Beatles' 'I Am The Walrus' contained the word 'nickers' - good job she never heard any thrash metal!
I think we have to use broad guidelines about what offends the majority, and legislate around them - but freedom is a two-edged sword at the best of times.
Perhaps it's the wrong word or an outdated notion? The article itself refers to Lady Chatterly's lover once being considere as obscene and I'm sure we can all think of several authors/artists this could extend to that now wouldn't have us batting an eyelid.
Maybe it should be less about the depravity or corruption which may happen to a viewer of certain materials and more about the actual material. So perhaps if the material is glorifying violence, rape, child abuse, murder, beastiality etc... then it is considered obscene on that basis rather then the effect on others. But then you'd have to change the legal definition I guess so like I siad, maybe obscene is just the wrong word or notion.
So no, I can't think of a better definition either!
Maybe it should be less about the depravity or corruption which may happen to a viewer of certain materials and more about the actual material. So perhaps if the material is glorifying violence, rape, child abuse, murder, beastiality etc... then it is considered obscene on that basis rather then the effect on others. But then you'd have to change the legal definition I guess so like I siad, maybe obscene is just the wrong word or notion.
So no, I can't think of a better definition either!
Sex itself is not obscene, it's the circumstances involved that can push it over the edge. My own view is that as long as the act involves consenting adults ONLY, then it is not obscene. Start involving children, animals or anyone who is being forced into something they don't want to do and it is.
There are grey areas, of course. Is an "entertainment" film, showing an acted, simulated rape more or less acceptable than a hard-hitting documentary showing a real one? Is it OK as long as the film-maker's sympathies are with the victim and trying to make you feel angry, rather than with the perpetrators and trying to titillate?
With scenes of violence (including rape), there seems to be an unwritten rule that the more realistic it is, the closer to "obscene" it gets. So an indestructible, chainsaw-wielding, mask-wearing psycho can carve his way through as many hapless teens (and hopeless sequels) as he likes, but a scene of a football hooligan kicking seven bells out of a rival may fall foul of the censors.
If I were to offer a definition of obscene - again, just my view - perhaps it's along the lines of "that which seeks to titillate and potentially corrupt the viewer, by depicting the real or realistic abuse or suffering of others".
There are grey areas, of course. Is an "entertainment" film, showing an acted, simulated rape more or less acceptable than a hard-hitting documentary showing a real one? Is it OK as long as the film-maker's sympathies are with the victim and trying to make you feel angry, rather than with the perpetrators and trying to titillate?
With scenes of violence (including rape), there seems to be an unwritten rule that the more realistic it is, the closer to "obscene" it gets. So an indestructible, chainsaw-wielding, mask-wearing psycho can carve his way through as many hapless teens (and hopeless sequels) as he likes, but a scene of a football hooligan kicking seven bells out of a rival may fall foul of the censors.
If I were to offer a definition of obscene - again, just my view - perhaps it's along the lines of "that which seeks to titillate and potentially corrupt the viewer, by depicting the real or realistic abuse or suffering of others".
No I can not and I think it quite a good definition. Great question by the way.
Whilst a Judge can not with complete accuracy judge what will deprave another person, its the best system we have (In my opinion). There is inevitably a tension between protecting the general population and the freedom of an individual to express themselves. I think that our system of organising ourselves in society is always going to be imperfect because we are human.
The work of Lawerence was pushing the then boundaries, probably all art does that unless it is so mainstream it possibly isn't art. The boundaries undoubtedly needed shifting. I mean work that a male lawyer wouldn't want his wife or servant to read!! To me clear evidence of a patriarchal system that was wanting to control women and their sexuality, retain an out dated class system, power base etc.
However I do want there to be boundaries, material that is prohibited in some way. I don't want unregulated violence to be easily accessible. Whilst it might not corrupt (another debate), it is at least unpleasant/upsetting. Without obscenity laws, without some sort of marking of when the line has been transgressed, it would be a well anything goes?
Whilst a Judge can not with complete accuracy judge what will deprave another person, its the best system we have (In my opinion). There is inevitably a tension between protecting the general population and the freedom of an individual to express themselves. I think that our system of organising ourselves in society is always going to be imperfect because we are human.
The work of Lawerence was pushing the then boundaries, probably all art does that unless it is so mainstream it possibly isn't art. The boundaries undoubtedly needed shifting. I mean work that a male lawyer wouldn't want his wife or servant to read!! To me clear evidence of a patriarchal system that was wanting to control women and their sexuality, retain an out dated class system, power base etc.
However I do want there to be boundaries, material that is prohibited in some way. I don't want unregulated violence to be easily accessible. Whilst it might not corrupt (another debate), it is at least unpleasant/upsetting. Without obscenity laws, without some sort of marking of when the line has been transgressed, it would be a well anything goes?
1 to 4 of 4
