Reflection on the Project about Obscene Publication Act - Essay Example

REFLECTION The purpose of the project that the group analyzed was to decide whether the Obscene Publication Act 1959 should be abolished or not. The group based the conclusion on the careful study of all the common laws and statutes related to the Obscene Publication Act, such as the common law offences of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and outraging public decency. The analysis aimed at determining the degree to which this Act infringed upon on the public’s right of expression and freedom of speech along with other civil liberties. Subjective Reflection: Being the member of the group, I agree with the group’s collective opinion that the OBA has to be amended in matters where it leaves room for ambiguity or where it infringes on civil liberties. We can’t suffice with the current version of the law nor can we afford to completely do away with it. But the experience of participating in the relevant research for the topic has made me realize that it is somewhat difficult to outline a frame work that defines what transgresses the limits of decency. From a personal point of view, I think it is also highly debatable subject as to who decides upon that framework. Despite the intricacies of the debate, there are no two views on the agreement that obscenity and indecency are condemnable in the extreme form where you cannot doubt whether they are harmful or not. The very start of the concept of censorship in UK is very controversial, thinking in retrospect. The Ministry of Information was improvised into a propaganda machine during the World War II days and it censored all publications it did not deem patriotic enough which now seem like an act that hindered journalistic freedom and defied the complete concept of censorship as a process that aims at the suppression of statements, representations or brainstorms that are “obnoxious”. The Penguin case makes a perfect example of how much ambiguity surrounds the laws and regulations that regulate the censorship cases. The book published by the penguin book publishers carried sexually explicit scenes and obscene language that became the reason for the case. But the book in question was declared not guilty on the offense of obscenity under the Obscene Publications Act as the defense proved the book to have significant literary merit. This resulted in massive debates over the limits of freedom of expression and public morality. The open sexual portrayal was hidden under the cloak of creative writing and literary merit. The group’s discussion carried a methodical research over all such cases that presented us with situations where the law fell short of providing a just decision. We studied the results from these cases and debated on the usefulness and the logic of the verdicts. This presented us with solutions that we think could better on the policy. The method of deducing from given cases proved to be more useful than starting off with an idea and implying it on situations to figure out the usefulness of the induction. The Protection of Children Act is similar to the Obscene Publications Act in its purpose of criminalizing the possession and distribution of obscene material but the PCA is stricter in its rules as it targets the issues of children which are way more sensitive in nature. Even after these strict rules, the demand for the material is on the rise, as the group noticed and mentioned in its discussion. The material that is harmful towards the innocence of children is available easily online and even in print. Media is also aiding the sexualization of children through advertisements and pageants that promote such an image. The important issue in all this is to recognize the shortcomings in the law that provide the culprits with loopholes to possess and distribute such materials and also recognize the shortcomings in the implementation of the laws. The group collected the statistical data that suggested that images showing extreme abuse of the children including sadistic sexual activity have quadrupled over the years. The group also noticed that the number of prosecutions under the PCA have also been greater than those under the OPA. Objective Reflection: The process of discussing a social wrong and its implications sounds interesting when you are a part of it. But the objective reasoning makes you realize that how specific focus on one thing can take your focus off from another aspect that is equally important. The discussion that was carried out was case specific in its context. The wider implications of the concept of censoring indecent material and devising ways to keep it out of the reach of underage children are quite beyond the scope of the discussion. The internet has made it impossible for the media regulatory authorities to ban all pornographic or otherwise graphic sites. Not even the commonly available media like songs is free of complete vulgarity and extremism both in the lyrics of the songs as well as the videos. . Undoubtedly some common libertarians could regard any deterrent with talk on that ground as illegitimate being as how it restrains single self-manage on the reason of either assemble morals or single revolution, both grounds in themselves being unequipped for safeguarding imprisonments on remarkable adaptabilities. The discussion could have been more over encompassing to include the contemporary censorship criterion. My Personal Reflection: I think that there is a lot of manipulation in our country regarding censorship. But then we come off a long history of such manipulation. Perhaps the most famous case of censorship in the History is that of Socrates who was sentenced to drink poison in 399 BC for the corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities. It is undoubtedly fair to assume that Socrates was not the first person who was severely punished for violating the political and moral code of his time. The need for a frame work is, hence, not the requirement of today. The invention of the printing press in Europe in the mid-15th century only amplified the need for censorship. Although printing greatly assisted the Catholic Church and its work, it also abetted the Protestant Reformation and "heretics", such as Martin Luther. Thus the printed book also became a religious battleground for censorship. We have been witness to a long series of misuse of the right to censor just as we mentioned a few cases in our discussion, for e.g. R v Smith and Jayson [2002] EWCA Crim 683, where the rules applied were ambiguous and subject to controversy. • R v Graham-Kerr [1998] 1 WLR 1098 The BBC broadcast on an episode of the British motoring TV show Top Gear showed the presenters referring to Mexicans as both ‘lazy and feckless’ and the Mexican food as ‘refried sick’. One of the presenters also articulated doubt that there would be any grievances against them as, he thought, the Mexican ambassador would be deep in slumber. The broadcast caused many complaints in Mexico which included newspapers and websites. While a motion of censure was considered in the Mexican senate and the BBC Spanish-language website BBC Mundo also received a lot of protests. This is the kind of extreme behavior that is truly harmful, but is free of any criticism in our national media and which I think needs to be checked a.s.a.p. The modern world is a murky place where the modern censorship theory is constantly being challenged. In my view, the group debate that we carried out did consume a better portion of our fragile brains, but the work should be titled work in progress, as the scope of the problem is vaster than we realize. In the group’s reflection, the article above was well researched, presented with relevant example and the language was coherent and clear. In my view on the matter, Censorship by definition is the suppression of statements, representations or brainstorms that are “obnoxious”. It happens when certain folks succeeded in imposing their private or ethical qualities on others. The open deliberation over censorship bargains principally with the first change and in case it is sacred for a bunch of folks to choose what is a good fit for alternate individuals. It has blasted within familiar years with the coming of the Internet. Numerous offbeat sorts of folks can and are recognized edits. Guardians, educators, heads and managements who deny others to speak in certain ways might be in controls. Indeed, the expression blue pencil as a matter of fact claims roots in aged Rome, which pointed to someone whose work it was to administer ethics and direct. The Experience: My experience of working in a well-informed group of people was extremely rewarding as the realization was very refreshing that there are like-minded people out there who are extremely concerned about our youth and the future of this nation and are, therefore, ready to put their energies and efforts in making this world a better place. It also helped create the motivation in us that change can be brought by a few people as well. We hope that our submission is taken under due consideration by the concerned authorities. The group selected the topic of obscenity instead of freedom of speech, which was our first choice, because it was more specific in nature. I was very opinionated and vocal about me ideas. The rule of teamwork is to complement the weaknesses and multiply the strengths; I followed this principle to the letter, mostly because the topic in discussion was one that made us more motivated. The positive aspect of a group work is that you can benefit from the multiple ideas and the dedication level always remains high. However, when you work in a group, there are negative aspects as well. You will find that all the people do not have the same level of dedication. My experience was not different in this context as I felt that a member in the group just did not seem to do his part of the work. When the result of a group discussion is given, it is accredited to the whole group, and the lack of participation of any one member is covered as a result. This becomes a little frustrating for the rest of the members. Another difficult aspect of teamwork is to maintain ones individuality. I found out that some members try and be too dominating. But I used my genuine ideas and voiced them openly to maintain my individuality in the group. The Legal and Policy Implications: The implications in this regard can encompass amendments as well as the enactment of new laws and statutes that ensure the proper use of the concept of censorship. The suggested amendments are regarding the inclusion of ‘invitation to treat’ in the context of publishing in the Obscene Publications Act. The suggestions also focus on making the OPA cover all common law offenses involving obscenity and dealing justly with any publications having reasonable literary merit. The suggestions are not radical in nature and not a great amount of policy change will be involved in it, it would rather force a small review of some of the sections of the OPA. Conclusion: I believe that on a lot of matters concerned with censorship, there is a larger degree of unanimity than is normally supposed, but that a dearth of explicitness has confused the public mind and unnecessarily increased antagonisms. The project aims not at making a novel contribution, but rather at disentangling from the confusion the accepted truths, in the hope that the remaining points of variance may be seen more plainly, and perhaps brought nearer to reconciliation. There are doubtless other doctrines involved in this difficult matter, and I shall be glad if this attempt to pull out those most obvious provokes more capable analysts to complete the task in the future. In doing so they must formulate a method of selecting censors wise enough to suppress only what is really disturbing without stifling growth and experimentation, and they must hit upon a device which will inhibit banning a book or play from advertising it. We have to remember that it is through freedom, and not through compulsion, that the human spirit gains in power and reach. References Books: • Forster Steve, Human Rights and Civil Liberties (3rd edition Longman, Hallow 2011) • Richard Stone, Civil Liberties and Human Rights (8th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2010) • Helen Fedwick, Text, Cases and Materials on Public Law and Human Rights (3rd edition Routledge, Oxfordshire 2010) 1072-1082 • Eric Barendt, Freedom of Speech (2nd edition Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005) • Helen Fenwick and Gavin Phillipson, Media freedom and the Human Rights Act, (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006) 422-477 • Nick ONeill and Simon Rice, Retreat from Injustice (2nd edition Federation Press, Sydney 2004) • Rowan Cruft and Mathew H. Cramer, Crime, Punishment, and Responsibility (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2011) Cases: • R v Smith and Jayson [2002] EWCA Crim 683 • R v Graham-Kerr [1998] 1 WLR 1098 • R v Smethurst [2001] EWCA Crim 772 • R v Coutts [2005] EWCA Crim 52. • R v Butler [1992] 1 SCR 452 CSC • R v Andersen [1972] 1 QB 304 • Mella v Monahan [1961] Crim LR 175 QBD • R v Penguin [1961] Crim LR 176 • DPP v Shaw [1962] AC 220 • Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435 • R v Gibson and Sylverie [1991] 1 All ER 441 • R v Peacock [2011] EWCA Crim 844 Articles or reports: • Home Office, Consultation: on the Possession of Extreme Pornographic Material [2005] Home Office/NOMS/Scottish Executive, para.15 • Easton, S., Criminalising the Possession of Extreme Pornography: Sword or Shield? [2011] JCL 75, 391-413 • ANNUAL AND CHARITY REPORT (Internet Watch Foundation 2006) accessed 13 April 2012 Read More