[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re. gun-shy but willing to wield a torch



>From: Ken in MD
>Subject: Re. gun-shy but willing to wield a torch
>
>>While this may not have any bearing if the charges
>>were being levied here in the US, it clearly does in
>>the UK where the state of "legitimacy" must be
>>shown.<<
>
>According to the Times of London on Jan. 14,
><snip> no English court had accepted research as an
>excuse for having pornographic images."

That's why it's so important that Pete doesn't *have* pornographic images.
 I would imagine that is why Pete made such a point to state that he never
downloaded anything.

Is is me, or does it sound like Pete was keenly aware of the fine line,
and how to avoid legally tripping over it?

I'd be very interested in knowing the contents of those E-mails to the IWF.

Kevin in VT