|
Professor cleared in court case on public indecency Web link to pictures of sexual intercourse not clearly pornographic, judges declare |
||
|
2004-06-26 / staff reporter / Lu Chia-ying Taipei
District Court judges declared a university professor not guilty
yesterday, after prosecutors charged her with violating the laws of public
decency when she posted a link to a Web site that showed detailed
pornographic pictures of bestiality. "The pictures are merely a part of the Web
site," the court ruling stated. "It will be too subjective to
determine that they are indecent articles." Josephine Ho (何春蕤), a feminist and professor of English at
National Central University, won the lawsuit in which she was accused of
jeopardizing public decency by posting the "Beast Love" link on
the Web site of the NCU's Center for the Study of Sexuality, last April. Ho who was director of the center at the time,
explained that "intercourse between human beings and animals does
exist, therefore, it is worth researching ... I hoped that everyone would
view it as academic research rather than pornography." Despite Ho's explanation, the hyperlink gave
rise to dispute among some educators and women's groups, who charged that
Ho had abused the freedom of academic research, and sparked an argument
over the fine line between pornography and academic research. The Ministry of Education, after receiving
complaints from more than 15 civilian groups, demanded that Ho remove the
link. Prosecutors indicted Ho last December, charging
the professor with violating Article 235 of the Criminal Code which
stipulates a sentence of less than one year and a fine up to NT$3,000 for
offenders. The article prohibits the distribution, sale, and display of
indecent writings, drawings or other pornographic works. The prosecutors' indicted Ho for circulating
indecent pictures. However, the judges deemed that it was hard to conclude
that the photos were "indecent." The pictures were posted under the heading of
"perspective and discussion" on the NCU Web site, where
information about sexuality is usually posted for academic study, the
judges said. It is therefore hard to conclude that the photos amounted to
obscenity, in accordance with No.407 Constitutional Interpretation as
given by the Grand Justice Council, they concluded. The interpretation states that "to
distinguish obscene publications from art, medical or educational
publications, one must examine the features and aims of the publications
at issue as a whole, and adapt them to the contemporary common values of
society." Prosecutors are allowed to file an appeal
against the ruling, but Ho said that she is certain to win the case, if
they do. Furthermore, Ho pledged that "the Web page
on bestiality will be expanded ... to fight against the resentment of
those parochial minds."
|
||