1985
THE PROBLEM OF DECIDING WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL EXPLOITATION OF SEXUAL CURIOSITY, ESPECIALLY IN PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL, WAS FACED BY EVERY MODERN SOCIETY.
THREE MAIN REASONS FOR THIS WERE:
* FIRST, WITH THE SPREAD OF EDUCATION THERE WAS GREATER
FREEDOM OF THOUGHT.
*
SECOND, WITH THE INCREASED QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF PRINTING PROCESSES AND THE CHEAP REPRODUCTION OF
COLOUR PHOTOGRAPHY, MAGAZINES HAD BECOME ATTRACTIVELY
GLOSSY AND CHEAP, AND
THIRD. THE PROFITS TO BE MADE FROM THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS WITH A PRURIENT APPEAL HAD INCREASED THE IR SUPPLY TO A NEW MASS MARKET FOR BOOKS AND MAGAZINES.
ANY CONSIDERATION OF CONTROL OF PORNOGRAPHY HAD TO START BY RECOGNISING THESE FACTORS, HE SAID.
+ IT IS NOT JUST SIMPLY A MATTER OF DECLINING STANDARDS OF WEAKNESS ON THE PART OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. THE PROFITEERS HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN PORNOGRAPHY.
+THEY SPEND MONEY ON LAWYERS AND ON PUBLIC RELATIONS IN ORDER TO DEFEND THEIR RIGHT TO PRINT THE MATERIAL WHICH THE IR' CUSTOMERS DEMAND, HE SAID.
THE EMPHASIS ON FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN LIBERAL COUNTRIES TENDED TO MAKE ALL FORMS OF CENSORSHIP OBJECTIONABLE, AND THE DIFFICULTY OF DRAWING THE LINE BETWEEN WHAT WAS OBJECTIONABLE UNDER THE LAW AND WHAT WAS PERMITTED MADE PROSECUTORS RELUCTANT TO BRING INTO COURT RESPECTABLE PUBLISHERS AND DISTRIBUTORS, UNLESS THE CASE WAS A CLEAR-CUT ONE.
IT WAS USUALLY THE LAW IN MOST SOCIETIES THAT A LINE HAD TO BE DRAWN, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT IN ANY PARTICULAR CASE TO SAY WHEN MATERIAL FELL ON ONE SIDE OF THE LINE OR THE OTHER.
IN HONG KONG, MR THOMAS EXPLAINED, UNDER THE OBJECTIONABLE PUBLICATIONS ORDINANCE IT IS AN OFFENCE TO PUBLISH OR DEAL IN ANY OBJECTIONABLE ARTICLE.
AN OBJECTIONABLE ARTICLE WAS DEFINED AS ANY ARTICLE WHICH CONTAINED +MATTER OF AN INDECENT, OBSCENE OR REVOLTING NATURE+.
/NEARLY ALL