2008/12/8 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>
> > 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.)


You are, of course, right.

That doesn't change, however, that this image is not illegal to view, it's
merely in a greyer legal area of "might be illegal". Which does nothing to
change the IWF's shameful overreach in blocking the article as well as the
image — and in doing such a cack-handed job of either.  :o)


O x
_______________________________________________
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