uk.people.disability

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:58:24 +0100, PeteM wrote:

>Alex Heney posted
>>On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:03:43 +0100, PeteM wrote:
>>>Alex Heney posted
>>>>
>>>>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.
>
>It would not. R v Mould was brought under POCA 1(1)(a) - the infamous
>"making" charge - under which there is *no* defence of legitimate
>reason, or wasn't at the time anyway. See para 14 of the CoA judgement -
>"14 Although there is a defence for a person to prove that he has a
>legitimate reason for distributing or showing photographs (see section
>1(4) of the 1978 Act) that defence is not available for the offence with
>which this appellant was charged."
>
>However that's scarcely the point. The real point is the meaning of
>"indecency". It seems to be generally agreed - by yourself, myself and
>the CoA - that if the Mould picture was "indecent", then pictures in
>medical textbooks are also "indecent" (bearing in mind that the
>indecency of a picture is legally a property *only* of the picture and
>not of its origin or purpose or the use to which it is put). But it is
>completely absurd to say that a picture of a naked child in a medical
>textbook is indecent.

Why?

I am not suggesting that *any* photo of a naked child in a medical
textbook would be indecent.

But I see no reason why a specific image in a medical textbook should
not be one which is indecent.

> From this fact it inevitably follows (by the modus
>tollens principle) that the Mould picture could not possibly have been
>indecent. However the CoA judges drew the opposite conclusion. Therefore
>the CoA judges were absurd.

I disagree, because I cannot see any reason why an image should
automatically NOT be indecent just because it happens to be one used
in a medical textbook.

You seem to think it absurd that it could be, but I don't understand
why.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If a program is useless, it must be documented.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom