Re: "Violence/It's the only thing that will make you see sense... "

["L. Bird" <pkeets@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >>Also, since he was doing research for a book that
> deals with child porn and his own possible abuse, it
> would seem that he fits the "for legitimate purposes"
> clause.<<
>
> There is no such clause in UK or US law.  A respected
> journalist in the Washington DC tried this defense a
> couple years back and he got 18 months in prison and a
> lifetime place on the sex offenders lists.
Here's a copy of the law:

160.-(1)  It is an offence for a person to have any indecent photograph of a 
child (meaning in this section a person under the age of 16) in his
possession.
   (2)  Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)
above, it shall be a defence for him to prove-
 (a)  that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph in his
possession; or
 (b)  that he had not himself seen the photograph and did not know, nor had 
any cause to suspect, it to be indecent; or
 (c)  that the photograph was sent to him without any prior request made by 
him or on his behalf and that he did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
   (3)  A person shall be liable on summary conviction of an offence under 
this section to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
   (4)  Sections 1(3), 2(3), 3 and 7 of the [1978 c. 37.] Protection of
Children Act 1978 shall have effect as if any reference in them to that Act 
included a reference to this section.
   (5)  Possession before this section comes into force is not an offence.


The law is about possession, and not about accessing child porn websites.  
Assuming that Pete's lawyer has advised him on what to say, it looks like 
they might be planning a defense under (2)(a), just in case.  I've also seen 
some comment about (5) as well, to the effect that the law was different in 
1996/97.



> Pete admitted to using his credit card to enter a
> site; that to me says he paid for access.  Simply
> viewing the images, without downloading, is enough in
> the eyes of the law.
Someone on alt.music.who that sounded like a UK lawyer says they have to 
find a picture in Pete's possession to establish that 1) he is in possession 
and 2) that it is indecent.  His admission that he personally accessed 
gateway site is insufficient.  If they can't find anything on his computers, 
then they don't have much of a case under this law.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus