Prosecutors drop 'freedom threatening' Girls Aloud obscenity blog case

A blogger has been acquitted of obscenity offences in a courtcase that could have redefined UK citizens' right to free speech onthe internet. Prosecutors offered no evidence against the 35year-old.

Darryn Walker had written a 12-page sexual fantasy about therape and murder of the five members of reality television groupGirls Aloud. The blog post was noticed by the Internet WatchFoundation, the non-governmental body which tracks images of childabuse, which reported it to the police.

Walker was arrested last year and charged, but prosecutorseffectively dropped the case in a Newcastle court, offering noevidence against Walker.

Prosecutors said that this was because of evidence from atechnology expert called as a defence witness who had provided areport claiming that young fans were unlikely to come across theblog post while looking for non-explicit material.

Prosecutor David Perry told the court that the case had beenbrought because young fans could stumble on the explicitmaterial.

"A crucial aspect of the reasoning that led to the instigationof these proceedings was the article in question, which was postedon the internet, was accessible to people who were particularlyvulnerable, young people who were interested in a particular popmusic group," he said, according to local paper the SunderlandEcho. "It was that which distinguished this case from othermaterial available on the internet."

Prosecutors received the defence's evidence earlier this month,though, and decide to drop the case because the evidence said thatit was unlikely that the material would turn up in everydaysearches for Girls Aloud material.

"[The expert's] evidence was in fact the article would not havebeen easily accessible to a person searching the internet and wouldonly have been found by a person determined to find the sort ofmaterial contained within," said Perry. "It is not possible torebut the information contained in the report and in the absence ofinformation to contradict that evidence the CPS decided, again withcounsel's advice, it was inappropriate to proceed with thiscase."

The prosecution was brought under the Obscene Publications Act.It was unusual because it related only to writing. Most modernobscenity cases relate to video and images after a 1976 caseagainst a story called Inside Linda Lovelace failed. Policereportedly decided to stop prosecuting over written material afterthat case.

Free speech campaign group Index On Censorship said that thecase threatened the rights of writers and internet users.

“This prosecution should never have been brought in the firstplace,” said Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censorship. “Sincethe landmark obscenity cases of the 60s and 70s, writers have beenprotected from such prosecutions and have remained free to explorethe extremes of human behaviour."

"This case posed a serious threat to that freedom. In future,obscenity cases should be referred directly to the director ofpublic prosecutions before any prosecution is triggered," shesaid.

The court heard that Walker had lost his job as a result of thecase. His lawyer said that "he had written what he describes as anadult celebrity parody, only meant to be read by like minded people[and] it had never been his intention to frighten or intimidate themembers of Girls Aloud".