uk.people.disability

Alex Heney posted
>On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:11:40 +0100, PeteM wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>"If the test for deciding whether a photograph is indecent or not is
>>whether or not it is the kind of photograph which appears in medical
>>text books, then many of the photographs with which these courts are all
>>too familiar could not be classified as indecent."
>>
>>... and from this they drew the stupid conclusion that the fact that
>>similar photos had appeared in medical textbooks was irrelevant.
>
>There is nothing even very slightly silly about that obviously correct
>conclusion, never mind "stupid".

It is obviously false. They knew that a previous CoA decision (Graham-
Kerr) had concluded that indecency is an objective property of the image
*alone*, not how it was made or for what purpose it was used. It
followed *absolutely* that if the RvMould image was indecent then the
textbook images were indecent.

>
>And note that they did NOT suggest that the same image in a medical
>textbook would not be "indecent", merely that there is an exemption
>for such works.

No such exemption is set out in the legislation. In fact, Graham-Kerr
specifically excludes the origin of the image as a component of
indecency.

>
>Whether this particular image is one which was objectively indecent,
>we will never know without looking at it, but whether it is similar to
>ones which could be found in a medical textbook *is* irrelevant,
>because of that exception.
>

What exception?


--
PeteM

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from