3 ms·

Thank you for your information on the system, I had no idea, I'm only vaguely familiar with the system in England and Wales. It's worth noting, however, that th

Thank you for your information on the system, I had no idea, I'm only vaguely familiar with the system in England and Wales. It's worth noting, however, that the fact it is illegal is specified in the state code rather than being decided by this court case. There is a similar case which I think is rather silly that a man in Australia was convicted of having 'Simpsons porn' which featured two underage characters from the Simpsons.

cyphar 9y ago
> It's worth noting, however, that the fact it is illegal is specified in the state code rather than being decided by this court case. Ah, you're right (I didn't read the whole document). In case you're interested, in other states there is a different criminal code (called the Crimes Act (1990) in NSW)[1]. The section on "child abuse material" (15A) is quite vague on what limits there are for something being "material depicting child abuse" and there is also a catch-all statement saying that something is also considered child abuse material based on " the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults". In general I would be surprised if it was legal in any state. I also checked, and it's considered "objectionable material" in New Zeland[2]. [1]: https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/a0a6239c-5e99-6ad0-fe6a-9d1efad30e4f/1900-40.pdf https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/a0a6239c-5e99-6ad... [2]: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/latest/whole.html#DLM313407 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0094/latest/w...