Not exact matches
The argument for no
standards is an argument against the very idea
of public decency.
Their crusade against the
public broadcaster has no basic
standard of decency, and using its attempt at intellectual consistency as a way
of painting it as a weak - willed terrorist sympathiser is apparently well within the rules
of the game.
There's an interesting post at A
Public Defender which wonders whether the Court should take its cues on «evolving
standards of decency» from the legislature.
In Lord Simon's opinion, such an interpretation was borne out by the purpose
of the legal rule, ie «that reasonable people may venture out in
public without the risk
of outrage to certain minimum accepted
standards of decency».
Moreover, the purpose
of the requirement that the act be
of such a kind that it outraged
public decency went to setting a
standard which the jury had to judge by reference to contemporary
standards; it did not require that someone saw the act and was outraged.