Tag Archives: censorship
My posts on matter considered obscene, reminded me of the 1930 case when Sir Ethelred Rutt K.C., had the misfortune of appearing before a full Bench of magistrates on behalf of the headmaster (a clergyman) of Eton College. Certain publications had been found at Eton College by a Police Constable Boot in his zealous discharge of a special warrant, whereupon the headmaster was charged under Lord Campbell’s Act, England’s first obscenity statute. The headmaster admitted that the publications kept on the premises were to be ‘sold, distributed, lent, or otherwise published’ – within the meaning of the Act – to the students under his charge, who were from thirteen to nineteen years of age. Read more of this post
LORD CAMPBELL’S ACT
AT Windsor to-day, before a full Bench of magistrates, a serious charge was made against the Head Master of Eton, a clergyman, who appeared to feel his position acutely. Police-Constable Boot gave evidence in support of the charge, which was preferred under the – Obscene Publications Act, 1857, commonly known as Lord Campbell’s Act. Read more of this post
In 1988 the case before The Supreme Court of Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt, Petitioners v. Jerry Falwell was about the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that; “The fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas.”
Listening to the tune ‘Slap that Bass’ on the radio, I recognised it as being from the film Shall we Dance, starring Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Rather than play my DVD copy of the film, I viewed a video for ‘Slap that Bass’ on the internet and have embedded it below. There is a comment that the opening sequence of ‘Slap that Bass’ made one viewer feel ‘uncomfortable’. Discomfort, I assume, at the all black troupe and the inference drawn that they were crew members in the engine room.
I previously posted the following when My Telegraph was having a brief relation with the service provider ‘One Site’. I was objecting to the censorship that this site arbitrarily imposed on the use of expletives. It is not the expletive that require censorship. The site had chosen a cheap way, in whatever context you use the word cheap, to monitor ‘personal abuse’. Automated censorship seems like a neat solution. As the service provider originated in the USA, I thought it worth looking at what the Supreme Court defines as Obscenity. “A thing must: be prurient in nature; be completely devoid of scientific, political, educational, or social value; violate the local community standards. If it meets all three of these things, it is obscenity”. Automated (artificial intelligence AI) censorship is not capable of such rationale. Read more of this post