Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Obscene Art
should the law intervene
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by paulndan. 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.That sounds suspiciously like the title of a course assignment ;-)
The timing of your post (2.12am) suggests that you might not be in the UK, where this site is based, so any references to statute law might not be relevant in your own country. (The USA perhaps?).
However the law here states that art can only be regarded as 'obscene' if it is likely to 'deprave and corrupt' those viewing it. Given the widespread access to online pornography, it's unlikely that anyone who (say) chose to visit a gallery displaying (what some people might consider to be) obscene works of art would be either depraved or corrupted by seeing them.
So, at the moment, the law is effectively powerless to act and (again, with reference to what's freely available online) it would seem illogical to modify the existing legislation to make such displays of artwork illegal.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/66
The timing of your post (2.12am) suggests that you might not be in the UK, where this site is based, so any references to statute law might not be relevant in your own country. (The USA perhaps?).
However the law here states that art can only be regarded as 'obscene' if it is likely to 'deprave and corrupt' those viewing it. Given the widespread access to online pornography, it's unlikely that anyone who (say) chose to visit a gallery displaying (what some people might consider to be) obscene works of art would be either depraved or corrupted by seeing them.
So, at the moment, the law is effectively powerless to act and (again, with reference to what's freely available online) it would seem illogical to modify the existing legislation to make such displays of artwork illegal.
http://
I now see that you've posted on another thread (with a roughly similar topic).
With regard to both, I'll point out that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression. There are, of course, some exceptions but 'freedom of expression' must ALWAYS include the right to offend.
We already have far too many laws which are in place solely because some people might take offence at certain actions by others. (e.g. as a naturist, I find it ridiculous that I can't walk down the street, or shop in Tesco, naked). Such laws should have no place in a 'free' society. (i.e., as far as the law is concerned, it should NEVER be wrong simply to cause offence to others. Only actions causing genuine 'harm', whether physical, mental or financial, should be illegal).
With regard to both, I'll point out that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides the right to freedom of expression. There are, of course, some exceptions but 'freedom of expression' must ALWAYS include the right to offend.
We already have far too many laws which are in place solely because some people might take offence at certain actions by others. (e.g. as a naturist, I find it ridiculous that I can't walk down the street, or shop in Tesco, naked). Such laws should have no place in a 'free' society. (i.e., as far as the law is concerned, it should NEVER be wrong simply to cause offence to others. Only actions causing genuine 'harm', whether physical, mental or financial, should be illegal).
Does the law intervene ?
well Yes - obscenity trial 1962 Lardy Chatterley's Lover and 'it is art' as a defence was tried....
also the police raided and took aways Sir Eltons Tuke Paintings when they were lent for a show
so that is lit and art
plays - I am astounded if a play has not been prosecuted for obsenity
Hair ?
should the law intervene
yeah I agree it sounds like an assignment unfortunately
and so shouldnt be in law but in the section labelled
I cant be a+sed to do my own homework
well OK what about a viddie of a dog being drowned
or that fellow being beheaded - would that be art ?
so you could make an argument that the law would intervene at some point but that the point is debatable and also varies in time
well Yes - obscenity trial 1962 Lardy Chatterley's Lover and 'it is art' as a defence was tried....
also the police raided and took aways Sir Eltons Tuke Paintings when they were lent for a show
so that is lit and art
plays - I am astounded if a play has not been prosecuted for obsenity
Hair ?
should the law intervene
yeah I agree it sounds like an assignment unfortunately
and so shouldnt be in law but in the section labelled
I cant be a+sed to do my own homework
well OK what about a viddie of a dog being drowned
or that fellow being beheaded - would that be art ?
so you could make an argument that the law would intervene at some point but that the point is debatable and also varies in time
As soon you link in the q law and art
we know who defines obscene
The fella in red, n the wiggie and the gavel ( = judge )
what is the defn - obscene publications act still 1959 ?
'tendency to corrupt and deprave'
NB - this is a law thread and not an oscar wilde thread - this defn was appealed in the Oz obscenity trial where Argyle J got it wrong ( defendants acquitted on appeal I think )
Lesley Phillips played him (up) in the teevee adaptation
we know who defines obscene
The fella in red, n the wiggie and the gavel ( = judge )
what is the defn - obscene publications act still 1959 ?
'tendency to corrupt and deprave'
NB - this is a law thread and not an oscar wilde thread - this defn was appealed in the Oz obscenity trial where Argyle J got it wrong ( defendants acquitted on appeal I think )
Lesley Phillips played him (up) in the teevee adaptation