Posted Jan 30, 2002 by Bagpuss
Wasn't it under this act that the Sex Pistols were tried for their album "Never Mind the B******s"? If so, I'm surprised music doesn't get a mention.
Um, sorry to moan, it is a good article, by the way.
|
 
|  | |
|
|
Posted Jan 30, 2002 by Mina - Older on the outside, inside still 14
Thanks. 
I've heard two stories about this. One that it was tried under the 1899 Indecent Advertising Act, and one that it was tried under the 1959 Obscene Publications Act.
Music censorship is almost unknown, as it is difficult to prove that it's harmful, and it would interfere with artistic expression. The 1854 amendment covers it - "Convictions would not occur if the publication could be proved to be 'in the interests of science, literature, art or learning'."
And to be honest, the case wasn't famous enough.
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Jan 30, 2002 by Mina - Older on the outside, inside still 14
Of course, that should be 1954, not 1854. 
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Jan 30, 2002 by Bagpuss
I didn't know there were two different Obscene Publications Acts. I suppose that's why these articles are useful. 
I've no idea which law the Pistol's were prosecuted under, but I've heard a good story about how they got off.
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Jan 31, 2002 by Vonce
Two Obscene Publications Acts? How low has human society dropped? Censorship...feh.
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Jan 31, 2002 by Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like
Not two acts, but amended versions of the same Act.
The 1959 Act amended earlier acts. It's basically a way of keeping tabs on new technology.
The latest amendments to the Act, for example, deal with computer porn. It doesn't create a new Act, it merely adds to the old one.
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
Home
Reply
