Well, you're probably getting closer there. If someone wanted to prosecute this today, there would be a lot of investigation required. Who was responsible, when and where were they responsible, what laws existed then, etc and all to try and put the toothpaste back in the tube. Why didn't it get investigated when it occurred? Who knows, but I'd bet there are good reasons why not. You can only get 5 gallons out of a 5 gallon bucket and once the horse has left the barn, it's to late once you have a bit more in the bucket.
In this case, you could easily find the picture was taken in another country where it wasn't illegal (now you can't hold the photographer accountable), placed on an album and distributed when the Attorney General was investigating something that used his resources to the fullest (war can do that, particularly when terrorism is involved) and by the time the crisis was past, the company responsible had vanished because of the death of the owner. Those are all fabricated facts, but an equally plausible set could exist for this case. I simply don't have information to make a determination, but I've lived on this planet long enough to know that picture was never acceptable in America (1776 to date). Had it been possible, they would have went after the people responsible. Why they didn't, perhaps we'll never know. It is simply possible that the people responsible no longer exist. However, it is wrong to assume that it didn't happen because no one believed it was illegal. ---Mike -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 12:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship 2008/12/9 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > For the purpose of this argument, there is not a difference. The soverign can choose when and how its will is exercised without ever implying acceptance. There are cases in contract law and civil law where that may by true, but it is never true in criminal law. It implies it is more acceptable than the things they are spending resources dealing with, so is this a form of child pornography the police are willing to turn a blind eye to? That seems unlikely. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
