Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Schoolkids Oz was No. 28 of Oz magazine. The issue was, on a special occasion, edited by 5th - and 6th-form children. It was the subject of a high-profile obscenity case in the United Kingdom from June 1971 to 5 August 1971, [ 1 ] the longest trial under the 1959 Obscene Publications Act .
Oz London, No.33, back cover advertising "A Gala Benefit for the Oz Obscenity Trial" After being turned down by several leading lawyers, Dennis and Anderson secured the services of barrister and writer John Mortimer , QC (creator of the Rumpole of the Bailey series) who was assisted by his Australian-born junior counsel Geoffrey Robertson ...
Schoolkids Oz, which prompted the Oz obscenity trial. In 1971 the editors of Oz were tried for publishing obscene materials, specifically the Schoolkids Oz issue. Oz was an underground magazine with a circulation of 40,000 which aimed to challenge the "older generation's outdated beliefs and standards of behaviour and morality". For its 28th ...
Before obscenity laws were deemed unconstitutional in the early 1970s, comedians risked the threat of arrest for performing material deemed lewd or obscene. Here are five comedians who were ...
He then goes on to describe the close relationship Minnelli has with his and Arlene's daughter. "We have a picture when our daughter was 3 years old around a Christmas tree [with] Liza hugging her ...
As a judge, he is best remembered for his role during the Oz obscenity trial, in which the three Oz editors (Richard Neville, Jim Anderson and Felix Dennis) were tried on three charges, including "conspiracy to corrupt public morals", an offence which, in theory, carried a virtually unlimited penalty. The three defendants were found guilty ...
Last week, Dr. Mehmet Oz, host of a popular television show, took on apple juice, declaring that the classic American drink may be slowly poisoning the country's children with arsenic. As the FDA ...
Nitke v. Gonzalez, 413 F.Supp.2d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) was a United States District Court for the Southern District of New York case regarding obscene materials published online. The plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the obscenity provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).