Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Oz No. 28: the Schoolkids issue. 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.
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 Oz was an underground magazine with a circulation of 40,000 which aimed to challenge the "older generation's outdated beliefs and standards of behaviour and morality".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 ...
His Honour Michael Victor Argyle, MC, QC (31 August 1915 – 4 January 1999) was a British judge at the Central Criminal Court of the United Kingdom from 1970 to 1988. Earlier, as a barrister, he defended Ronnie Biggs and, as a judge, presided at the Oz obscenity trial .
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).
WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) - Television personality Dr. Mehmet Oz won a legal victory after a judge dismissed a lawsuit alleging he violated a Georgia food libel law after making claims on his ...
Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2009) [2] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.