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

[Nicholas Bohm]

At 10:46 25/04/2002 +0100, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>	On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:19:06 +0100
>	Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> said...
>
>> I know its off topic but:  the decision to twist rational thought to 
>> treat downloading an image file as the same thing as making a photograph 
>> (whether by cameral or photoshop) was a response to moral panic by the 
>> judges at a time when the penalties for *possession* were perceived by 
>> the tabloids to be too low.
>
>No, I think it is perfectly reasonable.
>
>If you have the negative of a photograph, you can use the proper tools
>(photographic paper, developer, fixer) to produce a copy on paper that
>you can view.
>
>If you have a binary representation of a photograph, you can use the
>proper tools (Jpeg decoder, windows display software) to produce a copy
>on a computer screen that you can view.
>
>Perfectly comparable processes.

True; but in the legal context, this results in people who make images by
photographing child abuse being placed in the same legal category as people
who view the result.  It seems surprising for the legislature to have
intended this result, and not very sensible (viewers seem to me much less
reprehensible than direct abusers; and unless they pay for the images, it
is difficult to see that they provide any incentive to the abusers).

Regards

Nicholas

Salkyns, Great Canfield,
Takeley, Bishop’s Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone	01279 871272	(+44 1279 871272)
Fax	01279 870215	(+44 1279 870215)
Mobile	07715 419728 (+44 7715 419728)

PGP RSA 1024 bit public key ID: 0x08340015.  Fingerprint:
9E 15 FB 2A 54 96 24 37  98 A2 E0 D1 34 13 48 07
PGP DSS/DH 1024/3072 public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF