Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
I'm not sure you have got that right. It is necessary first for the prosecution to prove that the image comes within the meaning of "extreme pornographic image" as defined in s64(2), then, if it does, you can produce as your defence, evidence that one of the matters mentioned in s66(2) applies. You may have other defences as well.

There have always been pornography laws in England - cf Lady Chatterley's Lover. Look what they did to Oscar Wilde. Do you remember the prosecution of the producers of The Romans in Britain?

Not to seem complacent, I think the judiciary will probably apply this new legislation with a degree of caution and prudence. Otherwise, many of our avatars would come within s64(6)(b), and I don't think that's what's intended.

it is all just a quote from the same article i posted by date, all i did was look it, but it did say a Federal Judge ruled that the burden of Proof was on the Prosecution not the Defendent
A Judge even rules that a man who was cgaredwith child pornogrpahy both real and "virutal" did not have toopne his computer hard drivr since the password was a "virtual one" in his head and that of ot was in a wall safe the key would be a real physcial item the wholei ssue here i guess is the use of the world "virutal" what is what in not

i have no opinoin on it one way or another justreplying to a post on the topic, but do i condone child poronography NO WAY be it i real or virutal, to me both are still illegal regardless of what the courts say, but that is just my opnion