Law and Sexuality

A commentary and resource on Law and Sexuality by Professor Chris Ashford and guests

#porntrial – Further Analysis

A number of other reports have emerged following the case of R v Walsh (see this previous post), aka #porntrial.  The solicitor in the case, Myles Jackman, has written a compelling piece on his blog in which concludes:

‘It is my contention that the matter is now beyond the remit of the CPS, Met and BBFC and that the subject requires the scrutiny of the Home Secretary, Ministry of Justice and the Law Commission and that questions should be asked in the House.’

Jackman is absolutely right.  The issue of images of consensual sexual acts – both under the Obscene Publications Act and Criminal Justice and Immigration Act should not be decided by more lives ruined, and further costly and clumsy investigations and prosecutions.  We desperately need a sensible review of the law in this area.   Read Myles’ full post for his own compelling reasoning.

Daryl Champion has written an excellent piece exploring the messy way that the Daily Mail responded to the case.  It is an excellent forensic exploration and worth a read.

Benjamin Gray also has a very interesting piece on his blog exploring the role of the CPS in all of this, suggesting – and I agree in large part – that anger should be focused on the bad law at the heart of the case rather than the CPS themselves.  Read that piece here.

The post can be seen as a response to a mood reflecting on social media and in some media stories such as this piece by Terri Judd published in the Independent, linking together R v Walsh with R v Peacock and the Twitter joke trial (Chambers v DPP). 

Advertisements

2 comments on “#porntrial – Further Analysis

  1. Rob
    August 20, 2012

    Quick question – if the jury had convicted, would that have led to fisting and sounding being declared illegal, in light of the Spanner case? They'd have been found to be practices likely to result in serious injury…

  2. Chris Ashford
    August 20, 2012

    No, that might not have been what led to a conviction (see my post about the elements which needed to be satisfied). Fisting and urethral sounds can also be distinguished from the narrow category of behaviour which R v Brown (the Spanner case) established as unlawful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on August 13, 2012 by in Censorship, expression, Identity, Law, obscenity, Pornography, R v Peacock, R v Walsh, sexuality.

Twitter Updates

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

%d bloggers like this: