Sex Booklet Ruled Not Indecent (Press, 1 February 1972)

On 31 January 1972, the Indecent Publications Tribunal in Wellington ruled that the booklet "Love in Plain Language," published by Wilson and Horton, Ltd, was not indecent under the Indecent Publications Act. The ruling came after the booklet, authored by Robert Chartham, was submitted for classification by the Secretary for Justice, following a complaint from Miss Patricia Bartlett. This booklet was a reprint of a series of articles from the fortnightly magazine "Thursday," which had appeared earlier in 1971. The tribunal's decision followed hearings during which Miss Bartlett sought to join the proceedings under Section 14 (6) of the act. This section enables individuals likely to be affected by a decision to be parties to the proceedings. However, her request was denied. Nevertheless, Miss Bartlett's concerns and support from Dr F. B. Desmond were taken into consideration. The tribunal noted that when a book is presented for classification by the Department of Justice, it would benefit from a clearer rationale behind the complaint, especially when submitted due to public concern. The tribunal expressed that if the department was not supporting the complaint, the complainant should independently present their case. Moreover, it suggested that the department should consider calling the complainant as a witness in such cases. In its evaluation of "Love in Plain Language," the tribunal described the booklet as offering a straightforward and objective presentation of sexual information. It recognised the importance of distributing such information for public knowledge, asserting that the booklet did not handle sexual topics in a way that could harm the public good. The tribunal concluded that if the booklet was accessed by younger readers, it was unlikely to cause them any harm. The tribunal advocated for factual and responsible sexual education as opposed to the inaccurate or misleading information that was sometimes prevalent in public discourse at the time. Thus, the decision highlighted the tribunal's stance on the necessity of accessible and educational sexual information, while also acknowledging the need for proper channels of complaint and the role of public input in adjudication processes involving published materials.

The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact

The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand