Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T02:00:32.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Offensiveness in the Williams Report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2009

Brian Smart
Brian Smart
Affiliation:
University of Keele
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy , Volume 59 , Issue 230 , October 1984 , pp. 516 - 522
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cmnd 7772: Chairman, Bernard, Williams (HMSO, November 1979).Google Scholar

2 Ibid. 160.

3 The exception is the prohibition of live performances involving actual sexual activity. But even here the Committee refers to ‘dangers of public order problems’ (ibid., 139).

4 Ibid. 61–95.

5 See Section 4 of the Act.

6 Report, 126, 134.

7 Ibid. 12–13.

8 Ibid. 9, 102.

9 Ibid. 102. For scepticism about this see Anthony, Skillen, ‘Offences Ranked: The Williams Report on Obscenity’, Philosophy 57 (1982), 237–245.Google Scholar

10 Ibid. 122.

11 Ibid. 123.

12 Ibid. 97.

13 We are not to forget the other recommendations for prohibition.

14 Ibid. 97

15 Ibid. 123.

16 Ibid. 124.

17 Ibid. 124.

18 Ibid. 127.

19 Ibid. 56.

20 Ronald, Dworkin, ‘Is There a Right to Pornography?’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies I (1981), 199.Google Scholar

21 Report, 55.