Poem Indecent—s.m. (Press, 1 April 1972)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Poem Indecent—s.m. (Press, 1 April 1972)
On March 31, 1972, the Victoria University Students’ Association was found guilty of printing an indecent document concerning the poem “A Day for a Lay,” which was published in the university magazine "Salient" on April 7, 1971. The Magistrate, Mr D. J. Sullivan, gave a reserved decision stating that the poem presented a vulgar depiction of sexual acts associated with a deviant lifestyle and lacked literary merit, appealing only to those with prurient interests. The Students' Association had pleaded not guilty to the charge, which arose after the Wanganui Chronicle, responsible for printing "Salient," refused to print the poem. The association decided to print 3,500 copies themselves, believing the poem to be a significant literary work. A copy of the magazine was obtained by the police from a Wellington bookshop, where it had been prominently displayed. During the proceedings, the Magistrate highlighted that the poem described sexual behaviour in an exaggeratedly perverse manner, citing its origins from the English poet W. H. Auden, dating back to around 1931. Although the poem had been suppressed for years, it was recently published in the overseas magazine "Avant Garde." In his judgment, the Magistrate acknowledged evolving societal attitudes towards sexual and homosexual issues but stated that literature has to maintain a balance. He argued that while it is acceptable to explore deviant behaviours in literature, the work in question crossed a line into prurience and perversion, becoming irresponsible in its distribution. The Magistrate concluded that while the poem was primarily meant for a student audience, it was not exclusively private as members of the public could acquire the magazine. The court imposed a fine of $100, in addition to $5 in court costs and a $50 solicitor’s fee. He noted that even though the association acted with intellectual intent, this did not equate to maturity, and attributed their actions to inexperience.
Important Information
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