R v (1) GRAHAM WESTGARTH SMITH (2) MIKE JAYSON (2002)

[David Hansen]

On 24 Apr 2002 at 8:30, Donald ramsbottom quoted:

> S solicited further such images and did not
> delete any of the images from his inbox.

This case confirms my view that the law is indeed mad, or at least 
some of its practicioners are mad. Asking for further images no doubt 
breaks some law or other, but there is no doubt at all that the 
person (and the software) is not making the images. The software is 
displaying the images and the person is viewing them, but neither is 
making an image.

> There had been a case to answer.

No doubt, but not one of making an image.

> (3) The act of
> voluntarily downloading an indecent image from the internet to a
> computer screen was an act of making a photograph or pseudo-photograph
> because the computer's operator, in so downloading, was causing the
> image to exist on the screen.

Utter bollocks, though no doubt "correct" in the mad world of the 
legal "process". Where sanity prevails making an image involves 
cutting and pasting things, use of a camera and so on.


--
  David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will *always* explain why I revoke a key, unless the UK 
 government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.