28 JUNE

THE NEW ZEALAND GAZETTE

In the 120-odd pages of illustrations and writings there
are scenes of sexuality and violence which out of context
could be regarded as objectionable and perhaps harmful to
young persons. However, considering the book as a whole
we do not think those parts sufficiently indecent within
the meaning of the Act to justify a classification of indecency.
The Tribunal classifies this book as not indecent.
15 June 1973.
R. S. V. SIMPSON, Chairman.

No. 657–658
Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

IN the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and
in the matter of a reference to the Tribunal under
section 12 (1) of the said Act by the Magistrate’s Court
at Wellington for a decision and report in terms of the
said section in respect of the publications, David’s No. 1
Duals and a book of photographs bearing no title or indication
of the name of the publisher. Both publications are
described in Information No. C.R. 1452/73 filed in the
Magistrate’s Court at Wellington.
There was no appearance of any party to the Court
proceedings nor of the publisher’s representatives in New
Zealand. Accordingly no submissions were made.

DECISION AND REPORT
These two publications consist largely of photographs of
naked males which, either by the poses presented or the
detailed closeups, invite, in the most blatant way, prurient
dwelling on their content.
The Tribunal classifies these books as indecent.
15 June 1973.
R. S. V. SIMPSON, Chairman.

No. 659
Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

IN the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and
in the matter of an application by Waverley Publishing Co.
for a decision in respect of the book The Woman Lover
by Daye Ravish, published by Pinnacle Books, New York.
Mr Campbell appeared on behalf of the applicant and
made submissions.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Although this novel is much better written than many
which the Tribunal has considered, its portrayal of its sex-
ridden hero cannot be said to be using the very explicit
sexual scenes for the sustaining of some larger literary
purpose. Its treatment of the characters beyond their sexual
activities is perfunctory, and the book’s comedy is calculated
to emphasise the hero’s sexual opportunism rather than place
it in any context of values or feelings.
The Tribunal classifies this book as indecent.
15 June 1973.
R. S. V. SIMPSON, Chairman.

No. 660
Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

IN the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and
in the matter of an application by the Comptroller of
Customs for a decision in respect of the book Seduction
by Dr Gerda Mundinger, published by Grove Press Inc.,
New York.
Mr Fligg appeared on behalf of the applicant and made
submissions. Mr Campbell appeared on behalf of the
publisher’s representative in New Zealand and made sub-
missions.

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
Everything about this book—its contents, its format, and
its cover material—make its purpose unmistakable: to exploit
prurient interest in “case history” recitals of sexual behaviour.
It is simply another crude example of a genre with which
the Tribunal has become all too familiar.
The Tribunal classifies this book as indecent.
15 June 1973.
R. S. V. SIMPSON, Chairman.

1203

No. 661–697
Decision of the Indecent Publications Tribunal

IN the matter of the Indecent Publications Act 1963, and
in the matter of a reference to the Tribunal under
section 12 (1) of the said Act by the Magistrate’s Court
at Wellington for a decision and report in terms of the
said section in respect of the following comic books: Air
Pirates Funnies (decision No. 661), Bent (decision 662),
Bum Wad (decision 663), Captain Guts (decision 664),
Captain Guts, No. 2 (decision 665), Captain Guts, No. 3
(decision 666), Color (decision 667), Dan O’Neill’s Comics,
Vol. 1, No. 3 (decision 668), Coochy Gooty, No. 1
(decision 669), Demented Pervert (decision 670), Despair
(decision 671), Heavy Fragi Comics (decision 672), Illumina-
tions (decision 673), Insect Fear No. 2 (decision 674),
Mean Bitch Thrills (decision 675), Mr Natural, No. 2
(decision 676), Real Pulp, No. 1 (decision 677), Rubber
Duck (decision 678), San Francisco, No. 2 (decision 679),
San Francisco, No. 3 (decision 680), Tales from the Ozone
(decision 681), Tales of Sex and Death, No. 1 (decision 682),
Tales of Toad, No. 2 (decision 683), Uncle Sham
(decision 684), Uneeda (decision 685), Young Lust, No. 2
(decision 686), Yellow Dog, Vol. 2, No. 13 (decision 687),
Yellow Dog, Vol. 2, No. 17 (decision 688), Yellow Dog,
No. 18 (decision 689), Yellow Dog, No. 19 (decision 690),
Yellow Dog, No. 20 (decision 691), Yellow Dog, No. 20
(decision 692), Zap Comix, No. 0 (decision 693), Zap Comix,
No. 2 (decision 694), Zap Comix, No. 3 (decision 695),
Zap Comix, No. 4 (decision 696), and a comic book having
no title (decision 697), all published by Print Mint, California.
Mr Drury, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Comptroller
of Customs and made submissions. Mr Rosenberg, a party
to the Court proceedings, appeared and made submissions.

DECISION AND REPORT

In his submissions to the Tribunal, Mr Rosenberg said that
these 37 comic books were imported in small numbers, for
the purpose of reprinting select portions for distribution
in New Zealand. The delay since their seizure had, he said,
prevented this, and he asked that they be judged on the
basis of being potentially for sale in New Zealand.
Comic strips and comic books have developed into a genre
of entertainment regarded as predominantly catering for
and affecting children and the semi-literate. They have, as well,
been used for various informative and satirical purposes.
Mr Rosenberg argued that the comics before the Tribunal
were to be distinguished from the popular commercial product
and that they were, indeed, directly satirical of the conven-
tions and values of that product. He said that these 37 comics
were not written for, nor would they be appreciated by,
those who currently read the commercial comics. They were
published for people who remember the influence commercial
comics had on them and are now prepared to laugh at them.
He submitted that they should be read as a social phenomenon
and maintained that each comic should be looked at as a
whole, so that the satirical exposure of “straight” society
became apparent.
In considering these submissions the Tribunal must have
regard to section 11 (3) of the Indecent Publications Act
1963. This section says that “When the Tribunal decides
that any picture-story book likely to be read by children
is indecent in the hands of children under a specified age
that picture-story book shall be deemed to be indecent in
the hands of all persons.” The legislature apparently
recognised the practical difficulties involved in placing an
age restriction on an art form which made a particular
appeal to children.
Quite apart from this consideration, however, it is the
Tribunal’s view that the content of these comics cannot be
regarded as controlled by, or as serving any such sophisticated
social or artistic purpose as Mr Rosenberg contends. Their
treatment of sex, horror, crime, cruelty, and violence is so
gross and extreme as to negate any such purpose; they simply
use the comic book form to convey images of degrading
behaviour in a crude and sensational manner. This and their
standards of morality, art, and literacy nullify any satire
or humour some pages may contain, and when it is found
that in every one of the comic books there are frames or
episodes depicting indecency and violence, and obscene words
are freely used, the public good would not be served by
permitting their free circulation.
The Tribunal classifies these 37 comic books as indecent.
15 June 1973.
R. S. V. SIMPSON, Chairman.