2008/12/8 Owen Blacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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).

That sounds about right.

> 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.

No, that doesn't work. If it only becomes indecent once found so by a
jury then no-one could ever be convicted on child pornography charges
because the image wasn't indecent when they made it. A jury determines
whether or not it is indecent, that determination doesn't *make* it
indecent. (Yes, there is the principle of "innocent until proven
guilty", but that applies to people, not the facts of the case - a
person that makes an image is innocent until proven guilty, but the
image isn't decent until proven indecent, it simply is what it is.)

Wikimedia UK mailing list

Reply via email to