 |
 |
 |
From Passion Brigade issue 13.
Nearly six months later, and after all his videos and computer were returned, Roger was charged with illegally possessing six books and two images. The charges were laid under an updated clause of the notorious 1988 Criminal Justice Act which updated the 1978 Protection of Children Act and made mere possession of "indecent photographs of children" illegal for the first time. (In 1994, gaol sentences were introduced for the same "crime"). Although this was not the first occasion that Show Me! had been indicted in this fashion (a teacher was convicted in 1995 and given a conditional discharge), it was the first time that works by celebrated photographers such as Mann and Sturges had been dragged before the court. Pointing out in early 1997 how ridiculous it was to spend thousands of pounds of public money trying books which were freely available from high street booksellers (Books Etc, Waterstone's, the Photographers Gallery and others all sell these very volumes), Roger's solicitor failed to persuade the Crown Prosecution Service to drop the charges. At least that was the official police line ("as you know it's not us who make the final decision to prosecute, its the CPS"). But when the CPS solicitor annoucned that "we must be guided by what the police want in this matter" the fiction of "public interest" began to slip.
And when the case was finally heard in June this year, all pretence at an objective assessment of "indecency" seemed to finally disappear. It became clear that Roger was being tried because the cops wanted both him and the celebrated photographers found guilty and, perhaps most important, the proscription of any image of a naked child in any kind of physical contact with another human being. (One of the photographs, taken of thirteen year old "C", by Jock Sturges, depicted her asleep on a sofa, arms outretched, legs gently folded on each other: the logic for prosecuting this breathtakingly beautiful picture seems to be that "C" was merely inviting prurient regards).
There are only two effective defences under the Protection of Children Act: that the images aren't indecent and that possessing them is "legitimate". Arguing either defence is fraught with difficulty: there is no single accepted legal definition of "indecency", while one expert lawyer in 1996 advised that noone had ever successfully argued "legitimacy" in the case of specific sexual imagery: such as that contained in Show Me! However, if the prosecution thought in Roger's case that it could depend on "guilt by association" (showing that, even if the works taken singly had some legitimacy, posessing all of them together indicated a pattern of "misuse"), it was doomed. The young Asian woman magistrate made it quite clear at the outset that any motive for having these works didn't enter the equation, while "it is up to me and not the prosecution to determine what is or is not indecent". Having accepted the presentation of evidence as to legitimacy, she then allowed two expert witnesses to testify on Roger's - and McBride, Sturges and Mann's - behalf: the welknown anarchist writer, Colin Ward, and Nottingham lecturer in photography, Philip Stokes. Roger was also able to explain at length what his views on the phogtographs were and why he believed Show Me! was an important educational text for young people themselves. Aided by a solid phalanx of supporters inside and outside the court, the case began to turn against the prosecution hlaf way through.
The upshot was an acquital on seven of the eight charges (one slide, sent to Roger many years ago from the USA was found to be indecent. Although the court acknowledged that he had tried to dispose of it and didn't know he had it in his possession, he was fined 75 pounds.)
If the state thought it could use this case to censor Sturges, Mann and McBride through the backdoor, it dramatically failed.
Possibly, the trial (and more especially the coverage in Nicky Akehurst's film) has made it more difficult to penalise these photographers in future, even though Roger Moody's acquittal cannot be cited as a legal precedent. However, similar images and less wellknown artists may still be subject to seizure and there is no evidence the police are now "going soft" on people suspected of harbouring such material.
Logically, and if only to protect its own sources of income, the artistic community should rise up with one voice to condemn any attempt at censoring images which do not depict illegal sexual acts on young people (Surely this is the mininunm demand around which it could rally). But that "community" is itself chimerical. While Jock Sturges and Will McBride offered support to Roger Moody, Sally Mann kept her head down. Though Thames and Hudson (who distribute Sturges' work and that of other controversial photographers, like Larry Clark) were proud to be associated with Roger's defence, not one mainstream book seller would testify that they sold such books to the public. The solicitor for Phaidon, the English publisher of Sally Mann's Immediate Family", even announced she could only defend anyone possessing that work if she "knew what their motives were for buying it!" With artistic "friends" like these, who needs the porn squad?
Roger made these comments to Passion Brigade: "The Protection of Children Act has become its antithesis. As I predicted twenty years ago, being one of the few journalists who dared to oppose the legislation, it has not been used to prevent the real exploitation of young people by photographers - most of whom are anyway to be found working in advertising for big corporations - but to harass and condemn alleged "pedophiles". The worst aspect of this appalling denial of civil liberties is that, as of September, anyone found guilty of possessing just one image of an under-sixteen year old in the nude - regardless of who took it, whether the child consented, whether the photograph was associated with any criminal act, even whether the person charged actually knew it was in his or her possession - will go onto the Sex Offenders register. Indeed it is likely that, unless the PofC Act is abolished, this will become one of the major methods by which the authorities demonize and criminalise those they only suspect of having sexual feelings towards the young.
"The thought police have not only arrived. They may be calling at your door soon!"
 |  |  |
