cleanfeed and wikipedia

[Ian Batten]

On 11 Dec 08, at 1048, Roland Perry wrote:

> In article <20081210223009.56dcaa32@peterson.fenrir.org.uk>, Brian  
> Morrison <bdm@fenrir.org.uk> writes
>>> It's abusive to think that a child of that age can give the  
>>> necessary
>>> consent. Abuse is not always a physical attack.
>>
>> The consent was given by her legal guardians at the time I believe.
>
> Such consent may be void, in the circumstances (in the UK anyway).  
> Look at the SoA sections 10-13 for analogous offences committed by  
> adults who are presuming they can declare the consent of minors.
>
> But this all ignores the fact that even if such a picture was  
> *taken* with proper consent (or in a jurisdiction where consent was  
> not required), the distribution etc is still an offence.

An offence which has been being openly committed by a large number of  
major companies, throughout the world, over the past thirty two years,  
without a single prosecution being brought in any jurisdiction.   I  
love being able to use the phrase `begging the question' correctly,  
and here you are begging the question: it's only an offence to  
distribute the image if the image is proscribed under the relevant  
legislation, and that at the moment is conjecture.

Accusing people of a criminal offence is, of course, potentially  
libellous [*].  As Amazon haven't seen fit to remove the item from  
sale, either the IWF's assessment is correct and Amazon are therefore  
committing an offence, or Amazon's assessment is correct and anyone  
who accuses them of selling illegal items does so at their peril.

ian

[*] Tragically, this argument was used by the police to silence one of  
the complainants in the Sheffield incest/rape case.  It's a good thing  
the authorities are doing such a good job of protecting real children  
from real abuse so as to be able to devote efforts to record sleeves,  
isn't it?