On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >> >> > Promoting a sexual performance by a child is a sex crime, and as > >> defined > >> >> > generally includes the promotion of lewd exhibitionism. > >> >> > >> >> Well, yes, but then it comes down to what you consider to be lewd. > >> > > >> > > >> > No, it comes down to what is the proper definition of lewd within the > >> > context of such a law. > >> > >> Ok, so it comes down to what a reasonable person considers to be lewd. > >> (At least in the UK, there is no set definition of "indecent", it's up > >> to a jury.) > > > > > > That's not what I said, although I don't understand the distinction > you're > > trying to make. > > What's not what you said? And what distinction? I'm trying to make the > point that there is no obvious definition of lewdness and plenty of > people don't consider the Virgin Killer picture to be lewd (highly > distasteful for an album cover, sure, not not lewd), seemly including > the UK police (and the US police, although I don't know if that > version of the cover is still on sale in the US so it just be a matter > of times changing and were it released now the police would act). > The definition of lewdness may not be obvious, but that doesn't mean that we aren't capable of coming up with a good one to use within the context of the law. I'd like to hear your definition, especially with regard to what type of exhibitionist acts a parent can legally convince his young daughter to perform. I don't much care for assertions of what "plenty of people" believe if they aren't attached to explanations as to *why* those people believe that. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
