R
v Peacock
Michael Peacock has been acquitted of all charges after a unanimous jury
decision to find Peacock not guilty on 6 counts of obscenity.
Michael Peacock (referred to in the gay porn world as Sleazy Michael) had been
charged for distributing supposedly obscene DVDs including representation of gay
fisting, urolagnia and BDSM.
The trial was heard before the Southwark Crown Court. The
films in question feature: gay fisting (the insertion of five fingers of the
fist into the rectum of another male); urolagnia (in this case men urinating
in their clothes, onto each others' bodies and drinking it); and BDSM (in
this case hard whipping, the insertion of needles, urethral sounds and
electrical torture). Also there was an example of a staged non
consensual scene.
The Obscene Publications Act 1959 features the contentious and ambiguous
deprave and corrupt test, whereby an article (for example a DVD) is
obscene if it tends to deprave and corrupt the reader, viewer or listener.
The Test is defined in Section1 of the Act as:
An article shall be deemed to be obscene if its
effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the
effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend
to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all
relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or
embodied in it.
Peacock was represented by Nigel Richardson and Sandra Paul of Hodge
Jones and Allen
Myles Jackman, a solicitor specialising in obscenity law, said this
outcome was a significant victory for common sense suggesting that the
OPA has been rendered irrelevant in the digital age.
In a tweet, Jackman said that SCD9, the Metropolitan Police unit dealing
with human exploitation and organised crime, will meet with the Crown
Prosecution Service and the British Board of Film Classification to review
guidelines on obscenity.
And of course the authorities will be considering whether the law itself
now needs changing. No doubt nutter campaigners will now be pushing for
something new to replace the OPA now that it no longer supports their
censorial views.
Speculation: So what may be the outcome at least
in terms of BBFC censorship of R18s?
The
BBFC have been cutting all such material citing the current interpretation
of the Obscene Publications Act. But now of course this will change. The
BBFC will still be at liberty to cut scenes off their own bat. And indeed
the board has been regularly cutting scenes involving penetration by objects
that could possibly result in harm justified via its own guidelines.
I think there will be a few changes welcomed by all sides. The current
prohibition of female squirting leaves everyone totally baffled as to why.
This prohibition can now be rapidly dropped. Perhaps urolagnia can now be
generally allowed albeit with restrictions when it is considered by the
censors to be degrading.
Perhaps something similar with fisting which could be generally allowed
with a proviso that it must not be seen to be causing any discomfort to
those participating.
The BDSM issue is not going to be easy. The current ban is at least easy
to explain. To allow any level of hurt beyond trifling may prove very
difficult to define. Maybe it is still banned by legislation examined during
the notable Spanner Case, the judgement of which basically disallows people
from giving consent to be hurt. So perhaps the BBFC will just switch
justifications but continue to ban BDSM.
And I don't suppose that the non-consensual scene will impact BBFC
guidelines at all. This will no doubt continue to be banned from R18s.
The
#ObscenityTrial involving the issue of fisting (among others) goes into day
three today. 
Sheila
Farmer, a sex worker who worked with other women from premises for safety
had charges of brothel-keeping dismissed in Croydon Crown Court. She worked
with other women since being viciously raped and attacked whilst working
alone.
