Assertion: spear | /r/CapableOf | find against its classification
Facets:
value: on several grounds
type: CAUSE
Source sentences:
text: The Appeal Tribunal approved the original Classification Committee's determination that The Spear should not be classed as pornography,:5-7 but found against the committee, its procedure, and its classification on several grounds, including that the decision had been based on flawed arguments and interpretation of the relevant law;:7-11 that the committee had relied on conclusions for which no evidence had been presented either during the original classification process or to the Appeal Tribunal;:13 that the FPB should not have considered a complaint against the publication of The Spear in newspapers or on their websites, because the FPB has no jurisdiction over such publications, and should instead have passed complaints against them on to the appropriate regulator;:3 that the committee had wrongly taken upon itself "responsibility for balancing conflicting rights" that properly belonged to the courts, and was beyond the "much narrower mandate [of] the Classification Committee";:10-1 that the FPB had wrongly, and in violation both of the rights of their publishers and of legal principles of procedural fairness, "appeared to extend its ruling to all websites that contained electronic replications of the painting and to all other publications of the painting", rather than restricting its decision to the specific named respondents who had been accorded an opportunity to make representations during the classification process;:3-4 that due weight had not been given to the painting's status as a work of agreed artistic merit enjoying greater statutory protection from both publication and age restrictions;:11-3, 7 that the committee had wrongly deemed nudity per se to be grounds for considering a work of art "potentially disturbing, harmful, or inappropriate to children";:13 and that the committee had used the system of "restrictive age classifications" designed solely to "protect children" (and not adults) from potentially "disturbing, harmful, or age-inappropriate material" and "from premature exposure to adult experiences":9-11 in a way that "was not legally permissible" for "the purposes of protecting sensitive viewers or assuaging the sense of indignity felt by some segments of the community":11 by effectively restricting adults' access to a published work that was neither illegal nor pornographic.:7-11