(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – On 2 October 1998, ARTICLE 19 wrote to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, appealing to him to urgently review British obscenity laws and stating that they represent an excessive restriction on freedom of expression. Frances DâSouza, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19, said: “The Obscenity Act is impossibly subjective and is […]
(ARTICLE 19/IFEX) – On 2 October 1998, ARTICLE 19 wrote to the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, appealing to him to urgently review
British obscenity laws and stating that they represent an excessive
restriction on freedom of expression.
Frances DâSouza, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19, said:
“The Obscenity Act is impossibly subjective and is applied in an arbitrary,
discriminatory and inconsistent way by police and other officials.”
The problems with the Act are highlighted by a recent case which began last
October when police seized the book “Mapplethorpe” from the library of the
University of Central England. The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to
prosecute the University in this instance, yet while the Act remains
unchanged, the threat of such censorship remains.
The Mapplethorpe case was particularly absurd, given that one of the
photographs judged to be offensive in the seized book had been on public
display in the Hayward Gallery in London.
ARTICLE 19 also knows of private individuals who have ordered materials with
homosexual content from abroad, only to receive notification that their
goods have been seized by customs. They have the choice of pressing the
matter and risking a high-cost, high-profile court case – charged with
possessing material allegedly tending to “deprave and corrupt” – or allowing
the matter to drop quietly.
Frances DâSouza added:
“The âchilling effectâ which arbitrary seizures such as those mentioned
above have on artistic expression and freedom of expression should not be
underestimated. It is time for a thorough overhaul of legislation in this
area.”
The full text of ARTICLE 19’s letter to the Lord Chancellor follows:
Lord Irvine of Lairg
Lord Chancellor
Fax: 0171 219 4711
“I am writing to urge you to do all within your power to bring about a
timely review of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. ARTICLE 19 believes that
the present Act represents an excessive restriction on freedom of
expression. The key problem is that the definition of obscenity at section 1
of the Act as material which tends to “deprave and corrupt” having regard to
all relevant circumstances is impossibly subjective and results in
arbitrary, discriminatory and inconsistent application by police and other
officials.
The problems with the Act are highlighted by a recent case which began last
October when police seized the book Mapplethorpe from the library of the
University of Central England. A student had photographed pictures from the
book as part of her research for a thesis on Fine Art versus Pornography.
Someone from the photograph processing laboratory complained to the police
who responded by seizing the book. In March 1998 the publisher, Random
House, refused a request to remove two photographs from the book. Although
ARTICLE 19 welcomes the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to
prosecute the University, we note that students have been denied access to
the book for nearly a year and we are concerned that the incident will exert
a chilling effect of freedom of expression.
Mapplethorpeâs work is widely regarded as some of the most important
photography of this century and has recently been on public display in a
major exhibition in the Hayward Gallery in London. Significantly, the
Hayward exhibition included one of the two impugned photographs, Jim and
Tom, Sausalito, 1977. It is clearly absurd to suggest that the use of this
material for academic purposes would tend to “deprave and corrupt”. One
cannot help being suspicious that the homoerotic nature of Mapplethorpeâs
work had some bearing on the decision to confiscate.
Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident of the subjective
application of obscenity rules. ARTICLE 19 is aware of the recent seizure by
customs officials of material intended for private use containing
reproductions of Mapplethorpe works. The “chilling effect” arbitrary
seizures such as this have on artistic expression and freedom of expression
generally should not be underestimated. We believe that these cases clearly
show that amendment, or even repeal of the Obscenity Act is appropriate.
We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.”
Frances DâSouza
Executive Director
