uk.people.disability

On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:03:43 +0100, PeteM wrote:

>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.
>

Of course.

That *is* what I said, in different words.


>>
>>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.
>

And I never suggested in the least that the origin of the image had
any relevance whatsoever.



>>
>>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?
>

From the Protection Of Children Act 1978 (as amended)
------------------------------------
(4) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b)
or (c), it shall be a defence for him to prove—
(a) that he had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the
photographs [F5or pseudo-photographs]or (as the case may be) having
them in his possession; or
------------------------------------

So if they are in a medical textbook for which the person has a
legitimate requirement, then that would be a defence.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
How do you make Windows faster ? Throw it harder
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom