The legal definition of indecent, in this context, under English law, appears to be "anything which and ordinary decent man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting, or revolting" (Knuller vs DPP, 1973). As no jury has, to my knowledge, ever determined that this image meets that test, then the image does not qualify as indecent under English law. At elast until some jury decides to the contrary.
I have to agree completely, though, that the pose is indeed exhibitionistic, but not intrinsically erotic or sexual. Owen 2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I think a better analogy would be paintings in galleries which depict > under > > 18s, many of which could be considered "Images depicting erotic posing > with > > no sexual activity". I am thinking of some of the paintings of > Caravaggio, > > almost any depiction of Ganymede etc. > > An under 18 naked in an erotic pose, even without sexual activity, > would qualify as "indecent" by my understanding of how that word is > usually interpreted. The key thing with the Virgin Killer cover is > that the pose isn't erotic. It's clearly designed to show off her > nudity, but that's all. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
