Britain’s ‘porn bill’

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33424, 4 January 1974, Page 9

Britain’s ‘porn bill’

1 By

DAVID BARBER.

N.Z.P.A. Staff correspondent/

LONDON, January 3, Swinging London and the so-called permissive • society will take a hard [punch below the belt in 1974, and may even fade away completely. Even the comedian who, [blows a raspberry in tradi-i tional British music-hall style may find himself classed as! indecent, and face a heavy (fine or prison sentence. The equally-traditional • comic postcards, featuring fat women, little men, and double meanings, that are a (feature of the British seaside scene, also come in the ; pomographv category under: a new bill before Parliament The measure, likely to become law quite soon, also (threatens “what-the-butler-[saw” seaside peep-shows, [girlie magazines, and sex shops specialising in what were once under-the-counter ("devices” and "aids.”

Launched to counter the; freewheeling, anything-goes t aspect of the permissive;! [society, the bill has already!! I had a tortuous passage i| • through its committee stages! jin Parliament. ( Amid all the fuss, the Gov-p lernment has not defined j “indecency” beyond thej ( • statement that it includes . "anything which an ordinary I ; Iman or woman would find to , (be shocking, disgusting, or* revolting." The "Pom Bill." as it has become known, is designed! [to remove explicity-erotic I, posters from the streets, and’ [to clear sexy book and maga-i [zine covers from the book-] ■stalls. But the debate has demon-j !(strated that it also includes • books in libraries, pictures in private art galleries, “blue” ■ films in members-only cinefna ' clubs, shows in public houses,' land even “indecent” noises.! The main feature of the : bill is the banning of nudity t from magazine covers, which '■'will hit such now-respectable publications as “Playboy.”

Virtually the only clause that is widely welcomed is a ban on sending, unsolicited (indecent matter through the post. ! It is not yet clear how the publishers and others affected (will endeavour to get round • the new bill, but the only way (out for sex-shop owners seems to be to charge an admission fee, or “peeping ; price.” I The greatest area of con- • cem among opponents of the bill is the freedom it gives (for private prosecutions: it I has been dubbed a “prude’s charter,” opening the way for (a spate of prosecutions bv ’individuals opposed to certain publications. films, 'shows, or even works of art. In spite of the "permissiveness” of the last few years, a recent national 'opinion poll disclosed that 71 .[per cent of the men end (‘women questioned said that ■ they had never been seriously i upset by anything they con- » sidered indecent on public display.