In 1961, the case of R v Penguin books, more commonly known as the Lady Chatterley trial, exposed the gulf between what the English establishment and the public considered to be obscene.

On Friday, it happened again when defendant Michael Peacock was found not guilty of publishing ‘obscene’ gay BDSM (bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism, masochism) porn.

Once used as a moral benchmark, the Obscene Publications Act 1959 now smacks of anachronistic moralism. That the jury quickly found Peacock not guilty on all six counts suggests it has no place in English law in 2012.

Under the OPA 1959, Peacock was charged with six counts of publishing pornographic material that would ‘deprave and corrupt’ those who viewed it - namely customers with specific sexual peccadilloes who had sought out the DVDs from a requested list via an advert on Craigslist, or Peacock’s website, where he advertised his services as a male escort.

The DVDs showed acts of male fisting, urolagnia, whipping, kidnapping and rape play. None of the acts are illegal to perform themselves, exposing the contradiction between what the law allows consenting adults to do and what it allows them to watch or read of others doing.

There was concern during the trial that the explicit male on male sex acts depicted in the DVDs, their BDSM context, and Peacock’s escorting and life as an out gay man might distract a jury who were little acquainted with sexual subcultures.

Yet even Peacock himself praised their fairness: ‘Personally, I didn’t feel there was any homophobic angle to the questioning, either by the arresting officers or in court. And full credit to the jury. I noticed a distinct change in their reactions over the course of the trial.’

The Met’s SCD9 unit told Myles Jackman of Hodges Jones and Allen LLP, one of Peacock’s solicitors, that it would meet with the Crown Prosecution Service and British Board of Film Classification to discuss obscenity guidelines as a result of the case. However, the Law Commission has not commented on whether it will be recommending revision of the laws on sexual consent.

The case of R v Peacock is undoubtedly a victory for sexual liberty. But anti-censorship campaigners such as Backlash, warn that it is the Extreme Pornography legislation (introduced by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008), which shifts the burden from the producer to the consumer, and which has brought more than a 1,000 prosecutions since its introduction, that must now be challenged.

If the acts that obscenity law identifies as depraved are not illegal, then surely it is time to put the concept of obscenity itself to bed?

Nichi Hodgson is a freelance journalist specialising in sexual politics, law and culture