"But there is a material difference between merely exempting certain conduct from criminal penalties [in this case homosexual acts] and making it lawful in the full sense. Prostitution and gaming afford examples of this difference" - Lord Reid, giving the lead opinion in the gay personal ads case.
I'm getting the impression the spectrum goes lawful - not lawful - unlawful. The former has rights, the middle doesn't. But the latter has penalties, and the middle doesn't.
AIUI, it's like the difference between decriminalising say cannabis and legalising it. Various campaigners want the former because that means big companies wouldn't be able to take over the market - it wouldn't be lawful...
Both this lot of defendents and Shaw were convicted for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. In both cases, the Law Lords said morality is for juries to decide, as representatives of that public. The only reason the publishers of Boyz and QX aren't behind bars for printing way way more explicit ads than either of their predecessors is that a (properly chosen) jury would never convict now.
I'm less sure why they've not been convicted of living on earnings of prostitution... Someone's clearly decided not to prosecute - but if they were done for it, I'd be fascinated to hear their defence.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
baggyeyes
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-21 07:26 am (UTC)I'm getting the impression the spectrum goes lawful - not lawful - unlawful. The former has rights, the middle doesn't. But the latter has penalties, and the middle doesn't.
AIUI, it's like the difference between decriminalising say cannabis and legalising it. Various campaigners want the former because that means big companies wouldn't be able to take over the market - it wouldn't be lawful...
Both this lot of defendents and Shaw were convicted for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. In both cases, the Law Lords said morality is for juries to decide, as representatives of that public. The only reason the publishers of Boyz and QX aren't behind bars for printing way way more explicit ads than either of their predecessors is that a (properly chosen) jury would never convict now.
I'm less sure why they've not been convicted of living on earnings of prostitution... Someone's clearly decided not to prosecute - but if they were done for it, I'd be fascinated to hear their defence.