« Lawyer’s name suppression bid fails | Main | Well, you would be, wouldn’t you? »
Offensive offence
By Steven | February 16, 2012
A few years back, the censor banned this T-shirt (scroll down) depicting a masturbating woman and the words “Jesus is a cunt”. I questioned the ban.
Now the retailer who sold the T-shirts has been convicted for possessing them. I note that this offence also applies to everyone who owns such a T-shirt, whether they wear it or not. Are they to be prosecuted too?
Topics: Censorship, NZ Bill of Rights Act | 49 Comments »
49 Responses to “Offensive offence”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 21st, 2012 at 11:50 am
IF the t-shirt itself is banned, are we really allowed pictures of the t-shirt, or would the same reasoning apply?
Also, I assume someone made, or imported the t-shirt. Will they be charged? If they had reasonable cause to believe the t-shirts were objectionable, will they get 10 year prison sentences?
And finally, couldn’t the definition of “publication” be read down? It does seem a bit of a stretch for a t-shirt to fall within the words of the definition in the Act. It can be made to fit, sure, but I’d have thought some summary offences act offence was a better fit for people using (or encouraging others to use) t-shirt for the purpose of intimidating others.
June 28th, 2012 at 12:35 am
“IF the t-shirt itself is banned, are we really allowed pictures of the t-shirt, or would the same reasoning apply?”
Well, according to the article, the ban made by Bill Hastings specifies “…any act of possessing, wearing, distributing or selling the T-shirt, or another top with the same wording and imagery, illegal.”
If that’s a fair summary of the ban, then merely having, or pointing to the image, is not in itself banned. The ban imposed by Hastings seems specific to the format.
Interestingly, that seems to me to mean that one could make another version of the same kind of thing – the same text, the same or similar image – and put it in a non T-shirt/top format, and not be covered by the ban that lead to this conviction.
For example, a comic depicting this series of events (either directly or approximately) featuring images of people in the comic wearing just such a T-shirt, would not be covered by the original ban.
June 28th, 2012 at 10:46 am
Sure. The decision is about a t-shirt. And it’s possible that the same picture on a different format would not be banned. But isn’t that very unlikely?
July 2nd, 2012 at 12:20 am
Well, we have a different chief censor now. How much are they bound by precedent? Does it work that way?
I think you made a pretty strong case in your questioning of the ban. I feel it was a borderline call, and Hastings seemed a bit … harsh on this one. (For example, I fail to see how it is misogynistic, and what are they doing ruling on blasphemy?)
Also, in the scenario I used, there would likely be a stronger argument in terms of artistic or literary merit.
August 1st, 2020 at 7:40 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 91618 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
August 16th, 2020 at 9:07 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
August 25th, 2020 at 9:19 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
August 31st, 2020 at 11:54 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
September 9th, 2020 at 1:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
October 14th, 2020 at 9:23 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
October 15th, 2020 at 4:38 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 885 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
October 17th, 2020 at 9:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
November 5th, 2020 at 2:03 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
November 7th, 2020 at 1:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 41628 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
November 8th, 2020 at 7:05 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
November 11th, 2020 at 1:06 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
December 2nd, 2020 at 7:16 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 58604 additional Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
December 5th, 2020 at 1:23 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
December 6th, 2020 at 2:02 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
December 8th, 2020 at 1:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
December 31st, 2020 at 4:54 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
January 17th, 2021 at 8:34 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
January 23rd, 2021 at 12:03 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
January 23rd, 2021 at 6:51 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 95200 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
March 15th, 2021 at 6:54 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 73898 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
March 16th, 2021 at 5:57 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
April 1st, 2021 at 3:21 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
April 19th, 2021 at 2:20 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
May 19th, 2021 at 11:22 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 44696 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
May 20th, 2021 at 4:16 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you will find 91646 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 3:45 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 98352 more Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
June 28th, 2021 at 11:44 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
September 8th, 2021 at 10:03 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
September 28th, 2021 at 2:57 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
November 3rd, 2021 at 2:01 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
January 15th, 2022 at 9:50 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
January 27th, 2022 at 1:30 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 64718 additional Info to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
March 26th, 2022 at 1:34 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 37008 more Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
April 19th, 2022 at 6:29 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
April 21st, 2022 at 12:30 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you will find 15023 more Info on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
April 23rd, 2022 at 3:05 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Here you can find 244 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
May 1st, 2022 at 2:13 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
May 3rd, 2022 at 2:29 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
May 24th, 2022 at 3:33 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
May 31st, 2022 at 10:42 am
… [Trackback]
[…] There you can find 22128 more Information on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
June 18th, 2022 at 12:26 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
June 23rd, 2022 at 2:53 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
July 6th, 2022 at 12:03 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]
July 11th, 2022 at 1:45 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=541 […]