shali
25-01-2006, 12:42 AM
The Penal Code states - a book, pamphlet, [materials]... and any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect.. taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person, who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or. embodied in it.
It is trite that under the law, for something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material AS A WHOLE, would find (1) that the video appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a PATENTLY OFFENSIVE WAY; and (3) that it lacks serious legal, literary, artistic, scientific value.
Few critical comments are crucial here:
1. Prurient interest - A morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex. Surely this is not the purpose of the MP in showing the video. The nature of the video and the circumstances cannot safely be said to appeal only to prurient interest simpliciter.
2. Deprave and corrupt a person
The Malaysian law on posession of obsene mateirals is based on the Indian law, which in turn is based on English law. Obscene means tending to deprave and corrupt persons likely to read see or hear the material, see Uk's Obscene Publications Act 1959 s.1(1). Legal essays indicate that this definition dates back to the 1860s. It has no objective meaning, but relies entirely on a jury's [or judge's] view of what is obscene. Note the wording "persons likely". There is a reasonable argument that material sold in a sex aids shop [plenty in KL] are not 'obscene' because anyone entering the shop is doing so because they know perfectly what's inside and so will not be depraved or corrupted. Similarly, a photo of a boy being circumscised (long ago displayed in Museum Negara] is NOT obscene because it was not intended to deprave and corrupt the mind in a lascivious or sexual way.
Nope, I don't think the nude-squat video tends [or was even intended] to deprave and corrupt the minds of MP!
Is it 'patently offensive? Answer - No.
Having regard 'to all the circumstances'. Answer - it was used bona fide for purposes of informing a potentially serious scandal of national proportion.
The question, one might ask is this: can an action for malicious prosecution, malicious report, intimidation of MPs, obstruction of justice, be considered against the person who lodged the report against YB Teresa Kok? :D
It is trite that under the law, for something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material AS A WHOLE, would find (1) that the video appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a PATENTLY OFFENSIVE WAY; and (3) that it lacks serious legal, literary, artistic, scientific value.
Few critical comments are crucial here:
1. Prurient interest - A morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex. Surely this is not the purpose of the MP in showing the video. The nature of the video and the circumstances cannot safely be said to appeal only to prurient interest simpliciter.
2. Deprave and corrupt a person
The Malaysian law on posession of obsene mateirals is based on the Indian law, which in turn is based on English law. Obscene means tending to deprave and corrupt persons likely to read see or hear the material, see Uk's Obscene Publications Act 1959 s.1(1). Legal essays indicate that this definition dates back to the 1860s. It has no objective meaning, but relies entirely on a jury's [or judge's] view of what is obscene. Note the wording "persons likely". There is a reasonable argument that material sold in a sex aids shop [plenty in KL] are not 'obscene' because anyone entering the shop is doing so because they know perfectly what's inside and so will not be depraved or corrupted. Similarly, a photo of a boy being circumscised (long ago displayed in Museum Negara] is NOT obscene because it was not intended to deprave and corrupt the mind in a lascivious or sexual way.
Nope, I don't think the nude-squat video tends [or was even intended] to deprave and corrupt the minds of MP!
Is it 'patently offensive? Answer - No.
Having regard 'to all the circumstances'. Answer - it was used bona fide for purposes of informing a potentially serious scandal of national proportion.
The question, one might ask is this: can an action for malicious prosecution, malicious report, intimidation of MPs, obstruction of justice, be considered against the person who lodged the report against YB Teresa Kok? :D