tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post2081429549882459127..comments2023-03-27T07:26:57.437-07:00Comments on ObscenityLawyer: No words were harmed in writing this articleObscenityLawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15652268259166107121noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post-63171883665827498042012-09-22T15:29:49.495-07:002012-09-22T15:29:49.495-07:00As highlighted in the previous comments, I believe...As highlighted in the previous comments, I believe that this new court approved interpretation is not and will not be limited to internet chat logs. <br /><br />I understand that that the information discussed was in relation to child abuse, however what needs to be realised is the far reaching consequences beyond this one case. <br /><br />All forms of data communication devices will be up for examination. Considering the role that sexting plays in our society today along with the different fantasies that exist. It is worth remembering this ruling was NOT just for texts /writings regarding child abuse. Its ANYTHING that could be perceived as obscene by the investigating officers (i.e. swapping sexual experiences, graphic sexual role-play and the like). There are many (thousands if not millions) who are now targets for being identified as lawbreakers. <br /><br />What I find disturbing is that this new 'legally binding' perspective, seemed to be eased out without any noise or consultation whatsoever. <br /><br />I think it is interesting to note the police force involved in this case(Kent). If my memory serves correctly, this was the force that was upset previously that they could no real action could be taken on those who wrote 'dangerous texts'. Bearing this in mind, it sets a context for the defendants barrister claiming that they were on a 'Moral Crusade'. <br /><br />I remember a case that was flung out of court by a Judge; a man had a book from waterstones with what was classified as indecent images of children. The Judged believed it was wrong for the CPS to go after the individual and should go after the publishers instead. To my knowledge (though I may be mistaken) Waterstones have not pulled the book, and no publishers have been hauled up before the court. So, this book and its pictures is still (presumably) available up and down the country. <br /><br />Despite the book being full of 'images' it was a publication, the same as what the Judges deemed the chat logs to be. Yet nothing has been done to pull those publishers in and secure a conviction. As speculated by others already, it seems that this law will be used as a mechanism to secure convictions against 'easier' targets than others. Though I imagine the definition of 'easy' would be would shift from post to post and case to case. <br /><br />Doesn't quite seem just, does it?Lore Rueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15006904750821788711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post-18156854592924988532012-08-27T16:30:58.098-07:002012-08-27T16:30:58.098-07:00Having admittedly only skimmed the judgement, I...Having admittedly only skimmed the judgement, I'm confused. <br /><br />Section 1(2) clearly talks about "matter to be read or looked at or both" tending to confirm, if ever it were in doubt, that looking at something and reading something are different acts.<br /><br />Section 1(3)(b) talks about "matter to be looked at, or a record" but conspicuously doesn't mention "matter to be read", so it's difficult to see how it be applied to an IRC conversation. (Perhaps the chat logs themselves are "a record" but it was common ground that the chat logs were not published.)<br /><br /><br />What am I missing?<br /><br />I don't see any specific characteristics of IRC that were involved in the judgement, so I presume that this judgement also means that private e-mails and indeed text messages are deemed to have been "published" by the law?<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post-43020464219318353692012-07-30T19:07:14.021-07:002012-07-30T19:07:14.021-07:00If I read this right, I could be prosecuted for te...If I read this right, I could be prosecuted for telling someone I need to urinate, am about to urinate or have at some time urinated. Of course, I never have urinated and never would; nor has anyone I know, but still, it's worrying.Ron Sizelyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12676847788254717165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post-33659121281407579922012-07-28T07:10:56.999-07:002012-07-28T07:10:56.999-07:00The biggest thing that concerns me about this is t...The biggest thing that concerns me about this is that consensual acts like urination, fisting and BDSM are thrown into the same category as peadophilia and acts involving animals. A step toward a nanny state that doesn't trust its adult citizens to decide for themselves.Arielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16962370718239615105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post-757644684307993952012-07-26T05:30:59.119-07:002012-07-26T05:30:59.119-07:00Hmmm, very thought provoking.Hmmm, very thought provoking.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12849862790925172552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8920850427843688264.post-25885606942491327332012-07-26T05:13:03.210-07:002012-07-26T05:13:03.210-07:00If I've read the ruling correctly, then it mus...If I've read the ruling correctly, then it must also apply to all digital transfers, which these days include all telephone calls and emails.<br /><br />So following the Court's 'logic', surely all adult chat lines could be considered as obscene publications, given that they do not check that the person phoning them is not a vulnerable child?<br /><br />This smells suspiciously like the Police and/or CPS making policy by using a broadly worded law, which is not and should never be their job.<br /><br />Of course this case was easier because of the 'paedophile' aspect, but how long before they decide to use it against other things that they do not consider 'OK', such as drugs (also covered under theAct it would appear). What about computer games that contain inter species romantic liaisons - will they now be subject to prosecution as bestiality fantasies?<br /><br />One thing that can be guaranteed, once a zealous authority has a new 'power', they rarely refrain from using it whenever they wish - the thin end of the wedge indeed!A Nonny Mousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00338397554526918504noreply@blogger.com