Age Restriction For 'penthouse’ Urged (Press, 24 July 1980)

On 24 July 1980, the Australian edition of "Penthouse" magazine came before the Indecent Publications Tribunal in New Zealand, following a campaign initiated by Helensville MP Mr D. M. J. Jones earlier in the year. The Tribunal did not make an immediate decision and reserved its judgement regarding the magazine's content. The representative of the Customs Department, Mr P. Leloir, argued that the magazine should be limited to sale to individuals over the age of 18, similar to its American counterpart. He acknowledged that while the Australian edition is sexually oriented, it also contains significant non-sexual and informative material. Mr Leloir stated that the Australian edition has a less explicit sexual tenor compared to its American equivalent and described it as being more aligned with the style and format of "Playboy" rather than the more aggressive nature of "Penthouse" from the United States. In addition to the discussion on "Penthouse," the Tribunal also reviewed four issues of an American underground comic titled "Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers." The Customs Department had seized these comics from a private importer due to their depictions of violence, crude language, and representations of drug use. Mr Leloir indicated that these comics promoted drug taking as something normal and acceptable. In response, tribunal member Mr J. McLinden remarked that similar arguments could be made against other media that portray questionable behaviours. The tribunal members raised concerns about the appropriateness of the comics for children, with Judge M. Willis noting that children would struggle to read and comprehend them due to poor printing and small images. There was also a discussion concerning five seized publications with homosexual themes. Mr McLinden pointed out that societal attitudes toward homosexuality have started to liberalise, although legal restrictions still exist. Ultimately, the tribunal reserved all decisions relating to the materials presented before it. The case highlights ongoing debates regarding censorship, sexual content, and evolving societal norms during that period in New Zealand.

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