Posted by fústar in 
Obscenity. Profanity. Transgression. All these lovely things have been much on my mind of late. Not entirely sure why.
It may have something to do with a new blogging project that has "cunts" (phnarr) in the title. It may, instead, be related to the fact that I'm reading a book about shit. Or, it could, simply, be all down to the omnipresent recession. Everything else is.
Anyway, it struck me, the other day, that I'd no idea what the legal definition of “obscenity" is in 21st century Ireland. Could, for example, one be fined/jailed for obscene acts & works? Did “obscenity", as a legal concept, even exist anymore?
In a bid to answer these vexing questions I did what any serious researcher and seeker after knowledge would. I asked my "followers" on Twitter. Follower Crehan pointed me in the direction of the 1929 Censorship of Publications Act – a document that contains the following choice nugget RE: “indecency".
the word "indecent" shall be construed as including suggestive of, or inciting to sexual immorality or unnatural vice or likely in any other similar way to corrupt or deprave.
Before you chortle, roll the eyes affectionately, and say “Ah! The old days!", bear in mind that the above definition is (Follower Crehan assures me) still (still!) the law. God bless the state that, in its infinite wisdom, protects us from the corrupting durtiness of sex. With a stabilising and paternal hand it pours cold waters on our raging mickies. Without it we would, surely, be wanking openly in the streets and rutting passers-by like drooling pigs in heat. Christ…we're filthy bastards altogether.
Later that day, Follower McGarr telephoned me as I chewed contemplatively on an elevenses sausage. Between mouthfuls of meat (waaa!) we discussed (among other things) Alan Moore's Lost Girls, The Daily Mail (but of course), and (for reasons I can't precisely recall) the laxity of tax legislation. All very pleasant and diverting but, with appetite whetted, I wanted more.
So, in a half-assed amateur looky-uppy spirit, I opened a few books. First port of call was Murdoch's Dictionary of Irish Law (5th ed). “Obscenity" led on (as it does) to “Indecency" where the following was found.
Indecency – Any act which offends modesty, causes scandal or injures the morals of the community.
[...]
The publication or utterance of indecent matter is an offence and is required to be punishable by law.
Now I've always thought (Satan-worshiping lover of depravity that I am) that one of the functions (nay, duties) of art is to be unsettling, upsetting, challenging, discombobulating etc. There are plenty of community “morals" that I'd enjoy seeing “injured", and let's not forget scandal-causing: one of the most entertaining acts a human/artist can engage in. Yet, it turns out, such things are required to be punishable by law. Take that hippies!
Where's this post leading? Not sure…but I'd like to veer off on a slight tangent and mention Irish satire. One of the maddening aspects of our national “satire" (and other “subversive" forms of expression) has traditionally been how it's reigned itself in in the face of “Ah now!" culture.
“Ah now…you can't say that". “Ah now…that's not on". “Ah now". “Ah now".
Ah now? Ah fuck off.
The perfect response to (and antidote for) fat-necked Fianna Fáil soul-destroyers, banking fucknuts, The Sunday Independent, and all the myriad life-sapping forces that surround us is not cuddly ("Sure, it's all a bit of fun!") mickey-taking, but properly transgressive and (yes) even obscene "art" (define that how you will). Forget whoopee cushions, let's have some proper bombs. Old-timey anarchist ones. Ah now. Ah now. Kaboom!
Tomorrow I'll kick things off by…let's see…uhm wandering around town in a provocative t-shirt. On it will be a cartoon horse, wearing knee high boots and lipstick, pissing on a bishop. You have to start somewhere.
Conclusion: This, I know, has rambled, raved and meandered. But it's merely a kicking off point. An opening for a chat. Thoughts? Questions? Free legal advice? Over to you.
I have that very same t-shirt, bought it in the Disney shop.
There’s always Mervyn Griffith-Jones’ definition of obscenity to fall back on. He was counsel for the prosecution in the Lady Chatterley trial:
‘Is it a book that you would have lying around in your own house? Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?’
Marvellous.
I think the only way to achieve moral clarity is to ascend to obscenity and check out the view below.
The “wife or servants” thing is key to the hypocrisy behind notions of obscenity. It suggests that while I, a cultured gentleman, can handle a bit of the hard stuff in the name of art, weak-minded women or the lower orders might not. The courts acknowledged as much in the 1959 prosecution of a production of Tennessee Williams’ The Rose Tattoo at the first ever Dublin Theatre Festival. The law on the question since then has been that “to justify a committal for trial, there must be evidence of the accused’s intent by the performance to deprave and corrupt those viewing the performance whose minds are open to such immoral influences”
“Those whose minds are open to immoral influence” would seem to be a catch-all for “your wife or your servants”, not to mention your children. The hypocrisy is of a similar kind to that of the coke-snorting anti-civil-libertarian, who knows he’s middle-class enough to handle the drugs, but doesn’t want the Poors getting away with it.
A final word on Griffiths-Jones’ question about whether you’d let your wife or servant read Lady Chatterly. The pertinent question, so the joke of the day went, was whether you’d allow your game-keeper to read it.
Ok, some recapping first…
Thanks to Fergal for digging out details of the Attorney General vs Simpson case (1959) for me (after I quizzed him earlier). The acquittal of Alan Simpson (director of The Rose Tattoo) put a major kibosh on such trials in the future by its verdict RE: “intentâ€?. It’s worth looking at that quote again:
As evidence of intent to corrupt and deprave is, I’d imagine, hard to determine this was clearly a landmark decision.
In contrast, as far as I can see, the UK offers no such “outâ€? (and this, I’m sure, all goes back to Lady Chatterley). According to The Oxford Dictionary of Law (which I flicked through earlier), “the intention or motive of the author in writing or depicting the material is irrelevantâ€?. Crucial difference, though you can (it seems) appeal on grounds of “lack of knowledgeâ€? (I never realised it was so filthy, m’lud) or “public goodâ€? (it serves some interest of science, art, learning etc). Interesting that you can’t fall back on lack of demonstrable intent though.
Just a few bits to sort it out in me own head there. Back in a minute with more.
The “intent” thing also offers you an out if you can show you were effectively operating unbder very different standards of public decency. “How was I to know it was obscene guv, it’s all perfectly acceptable where I come from” “Which is?” “Er, Prosperous, Co. Kildare. We have our own special ways there”
devo, Are you sure it’s not Bambi pissing on Jiminy Cricket? You are short-sighted and notoriously prone to glasses-losing after all. Either way, it’s a bold new bid by Disney to capture an edgy yoof market.
Green Ink, For more of this kind of logic check out Hammer’s fantastic Rasputin: the Mad Monk with Christopher Lee. Says the bould Rasputin:
Best ever excuse for boozing and riding all round you.
Stanners, Fergal,
Well obviously the great, weak-minded unwashed are far closer to the rutting beasts of the fields and forests than port-swigging/coke-snorting gentlemen of learning and privilege like ourselves. We can handle it. They, at the drop of a nightie, will be lashing it into each other hysterically, It’s, like, for their own good y’know. Ungrateful bastards.
Hmmm…thinking about it again the UK situation does seem to allow someone to claim “Yes, I did, as an artist, set out to intentionally create obscenity and depravity, but I did so to serve a public good” (Exposing hypocrisy in public/religious discourse or whatever it might be).
Our situation, in contrast, doesn’t seem to allow this kind of defence of radical, intentional art/performance etc. You have to climb down and say – “Sorry lads. I didn’t mean to upset anyone. Or cause anyone to become mad and depraved”. You can’t, in other words, come over bullishly avant-garde and defiant. Unsurprising. The “Ah now” culture triumphs again.
The cosiness of Irish satire is indeed its greatest weekness. The radio stuff like Gift Grub, or the watery Bull Island is all about gas caricatures of gas characters. They’re “poking fun” when they should be forcibly shoving the noses of the powerful into their own turds and shouting in a barely hinged manner “how’d you like it now, huh? Not so much fun now is it? Is it, punk?”
The Colbert speech to the White House Press Association illustrates how it should be done. It didn’t get big laughs from the audience (“Ah now” types to a man), but it has aged well because it hit hard. Satire isn’t supposed to be a bit of fun. If you can’t even offend the target, let alone anyone in the audience, it’s not satire at all.
Absolutely. And the “targets” enjoy it! I’ve visions of Bertie Ahern seeing one of the Bull Island crew at the Galway races and giving him the old “You’re an awful man!” nod, wink and grin. Off they go to have a pint together and suck each other off.
RE: Gift Grub – it’s notable that it’s slotted into the show of one of Ireland’s most relentless “Ah now” men – Ian Dempsey. “Ah now, you shouldn’t be slaggin’ off Boyzone. They’re great for the country” et cetera, et fucking cunty cetera.
There’s a gulf of difference between satire and emulation.
Indeed. The stuff that dominates the Irish scene seems to be driven primarily by a desire to be entertaining (and to do amusing voices) rather than anger. Anger is at the bottom of all good satire I reckon. It’s only a starting point of course. You still need to be funny (obviously) and capable of crafting decent comedy/satire. If you’re too satisfied and content with the way things are then, almost inevitably, the results will merely be, say, wigs and high-larious nasally voices etc.
Ok, just to kick start this again – How would the law (in Ireland) deal with a particularly inflammatory and obscene self-made t-shirt? The reason I use a t-shirt as an example is because it’s obviously not “published” in the normal sense of the word. It’s probably more of a performative object – if you see what I mean.
Simon suggested to me that what might happen would be a) The guards haul you in on some sort of public disorder rap, and, b) They say they’ll let the judge sort out the degree of legal transgression (if any).
Thoughts?
Let’s off to Spreadshirt and try a few.
Bah! Let’s go for the totally home-made, cut up bits of felt and marker approach instead. The cruder the better. Trails of pee can easily be rendered with a simple dotted line.
I might ask Ruth to knock up something:
http://nicedaydesigns-ruth.blogspot.com/
There was a bloke done for contempt a few years ago for wearing a “Never Mind the Bollocks” t-shirt to court. But that is specific to a court-room setting. I’d love to know
(a) How transgressive a t-shirt would have to be to get you arrested; and
(b) How you’d get on in court.
I imagine it playing out like this. The guards arrest and charge you. Eventually they send you off home, forgetting to take the t-shirt from you. You turn up on your court date and the Guard decides that he’d rather drop the whole thing than have to describe, red-facedly, the filthy contents of your vile t-shirt in a level of detail sufficient to ensure a conviction. Man, I’d love to be cross-examining in that one.
“And this bishop: Tell me Garda Flynn, did he appear to enjoy being pissed on by this sexy cartoon horse?”
You have such a graphic sensibility.
I’m off to town to await arrest in my GUARDS LOVE GOATSE t-shirt. The distended anus is made from a toilet roll insert.
I’m not a fan of LOLs or ROFLMAOs or similar mirth abbreviations but I did nearly piss my trousers when I read that.
“And tell me Garda Flynn: Are you totally convinced, in you own mind, that this crude dotted line represented piss? I mean, it could have been indicative of, for example, machine gun fire. The comics I read as a lad were full of such imagery.”
*blushes with false modesty* Aw…thanks. I can do you some nice “stink lines” emanating from a turd too if you’d like.
Good man. This is the kind of provocative cut and paste approach we need in troubled times. Let me know how you get on.
Though if you do get busted (by a Garda Flynn) then I’ll be denying any involvement in helping to inspire the stunt.
[...] Related Post: Pissing on Bishops: 21st Century Obscenity & the State of the Nation. [...]