Motoring1 min ago
Question on pictures.
Hi,
I was having a discussion with one ot the parent govenors of the infants school on taking photos of children the other day.
One of the things that came up was what is against the law regards child porn. I am sure I read somewhere a while back that it isn't against the law to look at child porn pictures but it is to produce, reproduce, distribute, send them in the post or download or keep them.
Is this right? and if this is the case why?
I was having a discussion with one ot the parent govenors of the infants school on taking photos of children the other day.
One of the things that came up was what is against the law regards child porn. I am sure I read somewhere a while back that it isn't against the law to look at child porn pictures but it is to produce, reproduce, distribute, send them in the post or download or keep them.
Is this right? and if this is the case why?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Viewing child porn on a computer is illegal
It also meant that those simply viewing Internet child pornography on their computer screens were committing the offence. In R v Jayson (CA, [2002] EWCA Crim 683) the Court of Appeal ruled that "the act of voluntarily downloading an indecent image from a web page on to a computer screen is an act of making a photograph or pseudo-photograph".
http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.99.209.htm
It also meant that those simply viewing Internet child pornography on their computer screens were committing the offence. In R v Jayson (CA, [2002] EWCA Crim 683) the Court of Appeal ruled that "the act of voluntarily downloading an indecent image from a web page on to a computer screen is an act of making a photograph or pseudo-photograph".
http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.99.209.htm
Not just internet. Even in todays world not everything is on the internet.
We all know these sort of people know other like minded people so if one of them had their 'stash' of pictures and 'put on a show' for the others would only be looking.
They haven't made them, owned them or had posession of them etc.
It was a while ago and seemed a bit odd at the time.
We all know these sort of people know other like minded people so if one of them had their 'stash' of pictures and 'put on a show' for the others would only be looking.
They haven't made them, owned them or had posession of them etc.
It was a while ago and seemed a bit odd at the time.
Possession of this sort of material in any form is illegal
http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2008/05/07/extreme-porn ography-sentencing-issues/
http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2008/05/07/extreme-porn ography-sentencing-issues/
I don't know the in's and outs of the law, but I would guess it is illegal to even look at child porn pictures.
Why-because it is sick and twisted and I would say it is as it is just fueling a horrible crime.
many peodophiles have groups of friends who are into the same thing.
So imagine if cops crashed a group of peodophiles "looking" at pictures.
would you think they would just arrest the one who distributed them to the others, and just leave the rest as they were just merely looking?
Why-because it is sick and twisted and I would say it is as it is just fueling a horrible crime.
many peodophiles have groups of friends who are into the same thing.
So imagine if cops crashed a group of peodophiles "looking" at pictures.
would you think they would just arrest the one who distributed them to the others, and just leave the rest as they were just merely looking?
But that is the point at one time it wasn't illegal to look at child porn.
Perhaps it is now I don't know.
Jenniprice just because it is sick and twisted doesnt automaticly mean it is illegal... just should be.
I remember maybe last year of an artist who had a show in a gallery of pictures of her child and her friends children playing and there was a big hoha about was it porn or art. However if they had deemed it pron they would have, I suppose arested the artist and the gallery owners but would they have arressted the people who viewed them?
Perhaps it is now I don't know.
Jenniprice just because it is sick and twisted doesnt automaticly mean it is illegal... just should be.
I remember maybe last year of an artist who had a show in a gallery of pictures of her child and her friends children playing and there was a big hoha about was it porn or art. However if they had deemed it pron they would have, I suppose arested the artist and the gallery owners but would they have arressted the people who viewed them?
People charged with offences connected with indecent pictures of children are usually charged under the Protection of Children Act 1978 (Section 1) or the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (S160).
As Ethel says, it is illegal to �make� such pictures. People who have downloaded them to a computer (even temporarily) are deemed to have �made� them, even if the images are not retained. (In effect, the police can usually find them on the computer�s hard drive, even though the user may have �deleted� them. This is how prosecutions are usually supported).
As Ethel says, it is illegal to �make� such pictures. People who have downloaded them to a computer (even temporarily) are deemed to have �made� them, even if the images are not retained. (In effect, the police can usually find them on the computer�s hard drive, even though the user may have �deleted� them. This is how prosecutions are usually supported).
But as I have said it is not about copying them or owning them but viewing them. Forget about computors they have nothing to do with the question.
Tom has either made or aquired some pictures and has invited his friends Dick and Harry to visit him and shows them the pictures. Tom is obviously guilty but what of Dick and Harry. They don't own them and they haven't made or copied them
Tom has either made or aquired some pictures and has invited his friends Dick and Harry to visit him and shows them the pictures. Tom is obviously guilty but what of Dick and Harry. They don't own them and they haven't made or copied them
Sorry, cassa>, I had not read your question and the earlier answers properly.
I believe that no offence would have been committed by Dick and Harry in your example. People cannot be prevented by law from looking at things, even if the possession of those things may be illegal.
Imagine, for example, that somebody had posted an offensive photograph on a lamppost. Passers by may well look at it, but cannot be charged with any offence. The fact that such a viewing may take place in a private place cannot, in my view, create an offence.
Nothing in either of the two Acts I quoted says anything about viewing, only �owning�, �making�, �publishing� and �advertising�.
I believe that no offence would have been committed by Dick and Harry in your example. People cannot be prevented by law from looking at things, even if the possession of those things may be illegal.
Imagine, for example, that somebody had posted an offensive photograph on a lamppost. Passers by may well look at it, but cannot be charged with any offence. The fact that such a viewing may take place in a private place cannot, in my view, create an offence.
Nothing in either of the two Acts I quoted says anything about viewing, only �owning�, �making�, �publishing� and �advertising�.
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Sunday Post Cryptic Crossword ,
Crosswords8 mins ago
Reform Gaining Huge Numbers Of Votes...
News10 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
