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

Reply via email to