Public Morality Prosecutions
1. R v. Hicklin (United Kingdom, 1868)
Background:
One of the earliest and most influential cases in obscenity law. The case involved the circulation of a pamphlet on sexual health.
Legal Basis:
Common law offense of obscene publication, defined in terms of material tending “to deprave and corrupt” those likely to read it.
Case Details:
The pamphlet contained explicit sexual content intended to educate, but authorities prosecuted on the grounds that it could corrupt public morals.
Outcome:
Court upheld the prosecution.
Introduced the “Hicklin test”: material is obscene if it tends to corrupt those whose minds are open to such influences, regardless of intent or literary value.
Significance:
Set a long-standing precedent for public morality prosecutions, influencing laws in the UK and other commonwealth countries for over a century.
2. R v. Penguin Books Ltd (UK, 1960) – Lady Chatterley's Lover
Background:
Publication of D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover, containing explicit sexual content, was prosecuted for obscenity.
Legal Basis:
Obscene Publications Act 1959 – material that could “deprave and corrupt” readers was illegal.
Case Details:
The publisher argued the book had literary merit, and its explicit passages were justified by context.
Expert witnesses, including academics, testified to its artistic and social value.
Outcome:
The court acquitted Penguin Books.
Recognized that public morality prosecutions must consider literary, scientific, or artistic merit.
Significance:
Marked a turning point in UK law, balancing morality concerns against freedom of expression.
3. Miller v. California (United States, 1973)
Background:
U.S. Supreme Court considered prosecution for distributing sexually explicit materials via mail.
Legal Basis:
Obscenity defined under First Amendment limits.
Case Details:
Marvin Miller mailed brochures with explicit sexual content.
Local authorities prosecuted, arguing the material violated public morality.
Outcome:
Supreme Court established the Miller test for obscenity:
Whether the average person would find the material appeals to prurient interest.
Whether the material depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.
Whether the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Significance:
Introduced a clear framework for balancing public morality and freedom of speech in the U.S.
4. Regina v. Brown (UK, 1993)
Background:
Case involved consensual sadomasochistic acts among adults. Participants were prosecuted for assault causing bodily harm, framed as a matter of public morality.
Legal Basis:
Criminal law regarding assault; courts considered whether private acts could be criminal if they offend societal standards.
Case Details:
Defendants argued consent should be a defense.
Prosecution argued societal interest in preventing harm and maintaining public morality outweighed private consent.
Outcome:
House of Lords upheld convictions.
Public morality and the state’s interest in preventing serious injury justified criminalization.
Significance:
Demonstrated that public morality prosecutions can apply even in private consensual acts when harm is involved.
5. Toonen v. Australia (UN Human Rights Committee, 1994)
Background:
Nicholas Toonen challenged Tasmanian laws criminalizing consensual adult homosexual acts.
Legal Basis:
Tasmanian Criminal Code criminalized homosexual activity as contrary to “public morality.”
UN Human Rights Committee examined violations of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Case Details:
Toonen argued laws infringed privacy and equality rights.
Government claimed laws were necessary to uphold societal morality.
Outcome:
UN Committee ruled in favor of Toonen.
Tasmanian law was inconsistent with international human rights obligations and was repealed.
Significance:
Established that public morality cannot justify criminalization that violates fundamental rights, influencing legal reforms worldwide.
6. Indian Supreme Court – Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT Delhi (2009)
Background:
Legal challenge to Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized homosexual acts.
Legal Basis:
Section 377 criminalized acts “against the order of nature,” justified under public morality principles.
Case Details:
Petitioners argued that enforcement violated privacy, equality, and dignity rights under the Indian Constitution.
Outcome:
Delhi High Court read down Section 377 to exclude consensual adult sexual activity.
Supreme Court later reviewed but in 2018 finally upheld the decriminalization of consensual homosexual acts.
Significance:
Reinforces that public morality alone cannot justify criminal sanctions that infringe constitutional rights.
7. R v. Sharpe (Canada, 2001)
Background:
John Sharpe was prosecuted for possession of child pornography, argued in part on the basis of protecting public morality.
Legal Basis:
Criminal Code sections criminalizing child exploitation, framed under societal moral interests.
Case Details:
Sharpe claimed the law violated freedom of expression; court weighed public morality, protection of children, and constitutional rights.
Outcome:
Supreme Court upheld the conviction but carved out narrow exceptions for self-created materials not intended for distribution.
Significance:
Shows public morality prosecutions often protect vulnerable groups, balancing rights with societal norms.
Key Observations from Public Morality Prosecutions
Scope:
Public morality prosecutions historically involve obscenity, sexual conduct, and exploitation of vulnerable populations.
Consent vs. Morality:
Courts distinguish between private consensual acts and acts that offend broader societal standards, especially if harm is present.
Freedom of Expression:
Modern cases emphasize the balance between morality laws and constitutional/ human rights protections.
International Influence:
UN Human Rights Committee and regional human rights bodies increasingly limit public morality as justification for criminalization, especially regarding sexual orientation and private acts.
Evolving Standards:
Public morality prosecutions are heavily context-dependent and evolve with societal norms and legal protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments