| Boo Radley | 22nd January 2018 06:11 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSurfer
(Post 563630)
Please read below in BOLD
being in "possession of over 200 copies of an obscene article for publication for gain", he was found guilty under section two of the obscene publications act.
| Yeah.....?? Are you saying that because he broke section 2 of the obscene publication act, that he deserved to be declared a criminal and sent to prison? I might be picking you up wrong and I apologize if so but if you ARE saying that then with the greatest of respect, you are wrong in my opinion. That's how they got you back then. Some of the Video Nasties were declared obscene....32 or something like that... and then if you were caught with a copy or in this case, distributing copies, you are done under the obscene publication act.
The big problem now, as back then, is the definition of obscene and to prove such in a court of law. What is obscene? It is different for every person. I may think something is fine that you believe is obscene. Who's right? And why? 30 years ago NIADB was classified obscene. How could anyone declare it so, what criteria was utilized and how does it become a standard to be measured against? It can't. Full stop. History proves it. To put a man in jail for owning a film(s) that is available all over Europe and America, is a deplorable misuse and interpretation of the act. This is government controlled propaganda enforced by the courts. Utterly shameful.
Now obscene material regarded by the act is generally pornographic in nature and of the more extreme variety, I'm sure some members here, cough-MTDS-cough-Inspector-cough,:hail::hail: will know far, far, faaaaarrrrr more than me! | 