On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
I was a little disappointed (although not
surprised) that Channel 4 News didn't stand up for themselves and show
the image (after consulting with their own legal team) so viewers
could make up their own minds about whether or not it should be on
Wikipedia - censorship is as big an issue for the press as it is for
How do you know that they didn't consult with their legal team and their
legal team told them not to do it? Not everyone has Mike Godwin for
legal advisor, you know.
Because if their legal team said the image was illegal they wouldn't
have gone into a shop and bought a copy? Viewing the image on the
internet is one thing, actually buying it is quite another - I doubt
they would have done that if they knew it was illegal.
For mere possession of a small number of level 1 images, the suggested
penalty is a fine. Penalties for distribution are much harsher.
Anyway, I see Jimbo has commented on this saying exactly what I was trying
to say. See
"I would recommend to the community that we go back and take a hard look at
whether we ought to be keeping this based on our own principles, if it is in
fact likely to be in violation of the law in the UK and (especially) US. As
a community, we are already quite firm: we do not and will not accept images
of child pornography. So then the question becomes: does this image fit the
definition under (especially) US law, or the law of any particularly
relevant countries (UK). That is a question of judgment of fact that I do
not think has been looked at sufficiently."