uk.people.disability

Alex Heney posted
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:58:24 +0100, PeteM wrote:
>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.

Of course the whole discussion is undermined by the fact that the word
"indecent" doesn't really mean anything, so the whole basis of the law
is flawed.

However, even if we can never properly say that a certain photo *is*
indecent, we can sometimes be pretty sure that one *isn't*.

In this particular case - where the specific image is admitted to be a
simple picture of a naked child - it's simply a matter of common sense.
No normal person would open a medical textbook and say about such a
photo "That's indecent". He would recognise that it is just a
straightforward picture of a human body. And if pictures of the naked
body really are "indecent" in the eyes of the law, then an awful lot of
people are in trouble.


--
PeteM

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from