This won't get nearly as much publicity as the original complaint, but...

[mrph]

TV watchdog clears Springer opera - "The BBC's controversial screening of Jerry Springer: The Opera did not break rules on TV standards, media regulator Ofcom has decided"

edit: Oh, and Christian Voice (the organisation behind many of the original complaints) is appealing for £75000 so that they can start a private prosecution for blasphemy. No word yet as to whether or not they're also prosecuting the Times and the BBC, as threatened, for 'untrue quotes' about them on Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day'.

Comments

[rag-man.livejournal.com]

Is there actually legal precedent for suing for blasphemy?

[mrph.livejournal.com]

For suing, yes. For suing and winning... er... :-)

From the BBC news site (unrelated to the Christian Voice story):

"There have been no public prosecutions for blasphemy since 1922 when John William Gott was sentenced to nine months' hard labour for comparing Jesus with a circus clown

The only successful private prosecution since then was the case brought by Mary Whitehouse in 1977 against Gay News over a poem it printed depicting Christ as a promiscuous homosexual."

I don't think it's 1977 any more, thank fuck.

[rag-man.livejournal.com]

Good old Mary Whitehouse.....

They don't build them like that anymore!

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Let's hope not.

[rag-man.livejournal.com]

Aww, come on, she *was* fun! I think without these finger-wagers there's not so many people wanting to be outrageous!

What's the point of attempting to cross the line when there isn't anyone to draw the line, eh?

Actually scratch that last part...it played much better in my head!

:-D

[inulro.livejournal.com]

I know what you meant, anyway.

[deliberateblank.livejournal.com]

That's the last (and famous) prosecution for Blasphemous Libel, no?

[mhw.livejournal.com]

Strictly speaking, the 1977 prosecution was for blasphemous libel, not blasphemy. You may find it interesting to read what the Select Committee on Religious Offences had to say about the state of the law prior to and after the passage of the Human Rights Act 1988: here.

Note particularly the beginning of paragraph 10: Although no blasphemy case has been prosecuted in England and Wales since the passage of the Human Rights Act, and what follows is therefore necessarily speculative, it is our view that any prosecution for blasphemy today—even one which met all the criteria described in paragraphs 5-7 above—is likely to fail on grounds either of discrimination or denial of the right to freedom of expression.