The Darry Walker - Case Study Example

THE DARRYN WALKER CASE The Darryn Walker Case refers to the prosecution of Darryn Walker under the Obscene Publications Act for publishing an internet article describing the fantasized kidnap, rape, mutilation and murder of the members of the pop girl band Girls Aloud. The defendant, Darryn Walker, 35, a native of South Shields, South Tyneside, UK, is accused of writing and publishing the 12 page article titled ‘Girls (scream) Aloud’, on a fantasy pornography website on or before the 7th of August 2007. The article allegedly refers to Cheryl Cole, Nadine Coyle, Sarah Harding, Nicola Roberts and Kimberley Walsh, band members of Girls Aloud. The website on which the article was published is not hosted in UK but in some foreign Country. The blog immediately caught the attention of Internet Watch Foundation or the IWF which monitors the contents of the internet. The IWF alerted the Scotland Yard’s Obscene Publications Unit about the blog. Although the Scotland Yard doesn’t have jurisdiction to take action against the website, as it is hosted in a foreign country, it did go ahead with the arrest of Darryn Walker as he was confirmed to be a British Citizen. He was arrested at his home in Mowbray Road, South Shields on 27th of February 2008. He was later charged with Publication of an Obscene Material under the Obscene Publications Act of 1959. The defendant appeared before South Tyneside Magistrates on 10th July 2008.He next appeared at Newcastle Crown Court on 22nd October; he entered no plea and was granted unconditional bail until the trial on March 16th, 2009. This case is referred to as a historic case that could rewrite the laws of internet censorship. Experts claim this to be the most important obscenity case since the publishing of the Novel ‘Lady Chatterleys Lover’ by D.H. Lawrence. The novel created a lot of news due to its explicit sexual passages and it was considered to be an obscene publication, but the charges were later turned down and the novel published. The current case is a very similar one as it also deals with written content. Normally a prosecution brought under the obscene law is related to pornography, images or videos. It is very rare for a prosecution to involve a written work, and this makes it very similar to Lady Chatterley’s Lover. According to Andrew Charlesworth, senior research fellow in IT Law at Bristol University, "As far as Im aware there hasnt been an obscenity prosecution concerning the written word since the 1970s, so this is very unusual.” (Charlesworth, October 2008, Sky News) The Obscene Prohibition Act was created in the 18th century and it was later amended in 1959 and 1964. In this case, The Obscene Publications Act of 1959 is used. According to this act obscenity is defined as, "An article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it." (Wikipedia, November 2008, Obscene Publications Act 1959). In other words any material which, if accessible to the public, may deprave or corrupt the public can be termed as obscene. The Obscene Publications act is mainly used to tighten the hold on pornography. The Act has always been under a lot of pressure ever since pornography became available easily and freely on the internet. It is extremely hard to keep track of all the Obscene Materials on the internet although a significantly large number of groups have devoted their service to this cause. Such is the expanse and reach of the internet that it has reached a point where cases like this ever being taken to court has become a rare event. Earlier cases which have come under the Obscene Publications Act include the ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ which was earlier discussed, the underground magazine Oz’s issue in 1971 and ‘Inside Linda Lovelace’, the story of the porn actress. None of the above mentioned cases were ever found guilty and the charges were either dropped or the case shelved. Therefore the fate of the Act and its image on the public depends a whole lot on the outcome of this Case. If found guilty, it will be a message that internet is being monitored, if not it will only reinforce the public’s belief that internet is an open forum where people can get away with obscenity. But there is more to this idea than meets the eye. Let us take this particular case for a closer inspection, there can only be 2 outcomes, guilty or not guilty. If the defendant is found guilty, it will have very serious repercussions. It will mean that the internet is not an open forum for obscenity and that a person has to be careful about what he writes and what his writing implies, according to Stuart Heritage, editor of celebrity blog hecklerspray.com: "This case could affect what I do. It might make me more cautious about what I write and take into consideration the implications. I think the internet will remain hard to monitor because of different national laws but censorship can be a good thing in some cases if it means protecting people." (Stephens, October 2008, Mail Online). There is also a flipside to the coin, this sudden trust of the public on the system will also mean that the Authorities will need to take a serious look at the current situation, the pressure will be more than ever before to make sure that the internet is kept safe. An overwhelming demand for an encore will crop up, but the prosecution of any similar case in the future will again lead to the public questioning the efficiency of the organizations in keeping the internet clean. If the defendant is not found guilty, then the question of morality and rights will come up. This case will only go down as a public mockery of the Publications Act. This will also lead to a far greater degree of freedom for publications, which would mean that fictionalized crime against a living person or group of persons can be pardoned, this would mean that similar future publications will also have to be exempt from the Law. Which of these situations is more harmful is really not a matter of question. But the question is the position of the defendant according to the current legal stand. In UK the outcome of the prosecution will come down to the analysis as to whether the article is likely to deprave or corrupt those who are reading or viewing it. Due to the complex nature of the case it is very hard to determine which course the prosecution will take. In the Chatterley Affair, once it was found to be not guilty, the prosecution was ridiculed for not being in touch with changing social norms. Although such an argument is highly improbable in this case, the question of sexual morality will be put to test. If the jury feels that such an article describing the fictionalized rape and murder of famous public figures as obscene then the outcome can only be guilty. We are also inclined to feel that the outcome will depend to a certain extend on the opinion of the public figures mentioned in the article, the members of Girls Aloud i.e. if they decide to make a public statement which they haven’t done so far, in which case if they feel offended then the outcome will be a definitive ‘guilty’. (BBC, October 2008). The defense can argue that the defendant was just exercising his Right to Freedom of Expression. However the Freedom of Expression can be overridden if the interest of the public is questioned or for the prevention of a crime by the Criminal law. But there comes the argument that the curbing of the Right to Expression by the Criminal law must be proportionate. This might turn out to be a loop hole which might help the defendant escape, although the chances are really slim. Now if the same prosecution was to be carried out across the ocean in the United States, then it is an altogether different story. The United States Obscenity Laws are very complicated in that the Obscenity Law doesn’t define the term ‘Obscene’ clearly. In US obscenity refers to contents that directly or indirectly contain sexual acts that are publically accessible (Wikipedia, November 2008, Obscenity), but this is not an accepted definition. Moreover, different state has a different Obscenity law, and a different jurisdiction, there is no Universal law for the Country, which means that an act which might be considered as obscene in one state may not be found guilty in another state. In other words this case is guaranteed to be found guilty in one state and also to be found not guilty in some other state. So, in referral to this case being prosecuted according to US laws, the outcome depends solely on where, or in which state the case is to be prosecuted. The Federal Court doesn’t have any fixed distinction to specify whether an act is obscene or not. With the advent of internet distribution of obscene material, this lack of uniformity in the Laws has come under a lot of controversies and fire. Due to this the result of any obscenity case in the US is completely unpredictable. Therefore the execution of this case in the United States will depend completely on the opinion of the Judge passing the verdict i.e. whether the Judge finds the material as obscene or not. The Darryn Walker Case which has now been ongoing for over a year set a new benchmark in internet crime. Fantasy crimes which come under the Obscenity Act are very rare, according to Media lawyer Mark Stephens said: I think it is certainly the first fantasy case because nobody has been able to come up with a fantasy so bad before’. (Stephens, October 2008, Mail Online). The verdict of The Darryn Walker Case will always be regarded as a historic test which would determine the fate of the censorship of the internet. This case is the acid test for the Obscene Publications Act of 1959. This case will determine whether the act which has not seen an amendment in the last 4 decades is fit to judge obscenity in the current society. If found guilty, it will mean that the act has stood the test of time, if not, then it will mean that time has come to drastically change the rules to counter the latest social norms which has redefined obscenity in the last 40 years or so. Whatever the outcome, this case will always be remembered as the Trial of the murder that never was. Works Cited: BBC, Girls Aloud in murder blog case, 2nd October 2008, 7th December 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7649231.stm Merchant, Sarah, Obscene Blog Internet Test Case, 03rd October 2008, 7th December 2008 http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Girls-Aloud-Obscene-Blogger- Charged-Over-Internet-Article-About-Rape-And-Murder-Of-Girl- Group/Article/200810115112957 Revoir, Paul, Civil servant charged over porn-site blog which describes kidnap, rape and murder of Girls Aloud, 02nd October 2008, 7th December 2008 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1066435/Civil-servant-charged-porn-site- blog-describes-kidnap-rape-murder-Girls-Aloud.html Wikipedia, Obscenity, 7th November 2008, 7th December http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity Wikipedia, Obscene Publications Act 1959, 18th May 2008, 7th December 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscene_Publications_Act_1959 Read More