Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Obscene pictures - with warning signs

  • 01-04-2018 10:27pm
    #1
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭


    The Irish Centre for Bioethical Reform regularly display explicit images in public places which have been ruled against Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994.

    However the last time they were at Maynooth University the police told a friend of mine that because they had signs up saying "Disturbing images ahead" or words to that effect that they were not illegal. The Act says nothing about warning signs - just says that obscene imagery is illegal. These are on a public road not in a private arena such as a cinema, art gallery, private exhibition centre, etc, where you could avoid going in. And they were also on a road where there are likely to be children which makes it inexcusable to my mind.

    So was the guard correct in this?

    Note - this is not intended to be a discussion about the content, or the reason behind them displaying them - purely a legal question about what the guard said.


Comments

  • #2
    Lmklad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭Lmklad


    Warning signs are irrelevant. Take a picture of the offensive material and send a complaint in writing with the pictures to the local superintendent.


  • #3
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Orion wrote: »
    The Irish Centre for Bioethical Reform regularly display explicit images in public places which have been ruled against Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994.
    Orion wrote: »
    The Act says nothing about warning signs - just says that obscene imagery is illegal

    The Act does not say obscene imagery is illegal.

    The important point to note about S7 is it is not an offence simply to display explicit image in public, rather it would be an offence to display explicit images in public with intent to provoke a breach of the peace.


  • #4
    Lmklad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭Lmklad


    GM228 wrote: »
    Orion wrote: »
    The Irish Centre for Bioethical Reform regularly display explicit images in public places which have been ruled against Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act, 1994.

    The important point to note about S7 is it is not an offence simply to display explicit image in public, rather it would be an offence to display explicit images in public with intent to provoke a breach of the peace.

    You forgot the important bit “or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.”


  • #5
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Lmklad wrote: »
    You forgot the important bit “or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.”

    True, but I would take the warning sign to negate any recklessness, you would need to show they took an unjustifiable risk of potentially causing a breach of peace.


  • #6
    Lmklad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭Lmklad


    Totally disagree about the warning sign negating a legal responsibility. There is no exemption in the act for placing a warning sign. If material is offensiv, in a public place and likely to cause a breach of the peace then it contravenes the Act. Proving it of course is required but warning signs aren’t an exemption.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Lmklad wrote: »
    Totally disagree about the warning sign negating a legal responsibility. There is no exemption in the act for placing a warning sign. If material is offensiv, in a public place and likely to cause a breach of the peace then it contravenes the Act.

    No it does not automatically contravene the Act, it's not that simple, the questiom of weather material is likely to cause a breach of the peace in itself is not enough, nor is it an autmoatic contravention of the Act, you also need to prove recklessness.
    or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned

    The primary point is not being likely to cause a breach of peace, rather as I said you need to show the accused took an unjustified risk to create that situation, an unjustified risk involves the weighing of factors justifying the risk against those indications of the absence of justification.

    Recklessness is (a subjective test as opposed to objective one) an unjustifiable risk of potentially causing a breach of peace, the accused must consciously take an unjustified risk which the accused knew existed, placing the sign and giving warning to people could be seen as creating a justified risk, when a justified risk is shown recklessness is defeated.


Advertisement