Out-Law newsletter says IWF "was wrong to lift its ban on a Wikipedia page"

[Richard Clayton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <494569B6.9070406@callnetuk.com>, Pete Mitchell
<otcbn@callnetuk.com> writes

>Richard Clayton wrote  on 14-12-08 16:46:
>> 
>> It's intentional that PoCA (as amended) says "indecent" which is "lower
>> level" than "pornographic" (or "obscene")
>
>I can't see any meaning in the above statement. What level?

An image which is obscene will be indecent.

An image which is indecent may not necessarily be obscene.

- -=-=-=-

You will find a definition of obscene in the Obscene Publications Act
1959 (tendency to deprave or corrupt)

You will find a definition of pornographic in the Criminal Justice and
Immigration Act 2008 (produced solely or principally for the purpose of
sexual arousal)

Indecent is not defined in PoCA, so it has its dictionary meaning.

IANAL

- -- 
richard                                              Richard Clayton

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.         Benjamin Franklin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1

iQA/AwUBSUVyZpoAxkTY1oPiEQJEkwCfQ+BvbDepmEp4XulbUAlAqDFrPDcAoPB2
sYkweAyjrE+gZqOXGQ+UNJQT
=d6n4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----