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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l