Obscene Art

[paulndan]

should the law intervene

[Buenchico]

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

[Old_Geezer]

Wot ? An assignment requiring just a two letter answer ? Things were harder when I was at school.

[Buenchico]

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).

[Obiter]

The reason why you can't shop in Tesco naked is simply that if you linger too long around the freezer section you might cause long term damage.

[vetuste_ennemi]

" it should NEVER be wrong simply to cause offence to others. Only actions causing genuine 'harm', whether physical, mental or financial, should be illegal)."
I am not only offended but mentally harmed by your assertion that my religion is wrong.

[Obiter]

Anyway, if you go shopping naked where to you keep your wallet?

[Buenchico]

Vetuste_ennemi:
I can't find any reference to religion in my post but, since you ask, I regard anyone who believes in any form of religion as mentally deficient to start with, so I can't see what harm my posts might cause.

[grasscarp]

Mentally deficient? Really? I resemble that remark.

[Obiter]

" I regard anyone who believes in any form of religion as mentally deficient to start with"

So that will include HM The Queen, His Holiness the Pope, His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury to name but three.

[Buenchico]

Most definitely, Obiter!

[vetuste_ennemi]

Buenchico, I apologise for expressing myself poorly I agree with you totally about offence. What I was trying to say is that censorious bullies (many of them religious these days) will claim that the mildest criticism causes them unimaginable distress. . Try this one on for size.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9kAVlnGMTU

[Peter Pedant]

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

[sandyRoe]

Was The Romans in Britain the last play to be prosecuted?

[Canary42]

The problem is, who defines obscene.

I find extremely obscene the sculptures of a near-naked man nailed to a cross which are widely exhibited in this country.

[Peter Pedant]

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

[hammerman]

Too many politically correct, do-gooders in this country. if you don't like something, don't look at it. Then get over it, move on and try smiling, laughing and enjoying yourself, you'll be a better person for it.

Buenchico......spot on pal.