3 ms·
Unlikely. Anti-pornography laws generally only apply to imagery whose purpose is to be titillating [1]. There's just too much content of a sexual nature that is
by rbehrends 13y ago
Unlikely. Anti-pornography laws generally only apply to imagery whose purpose is to be titillating [1]. There's just too much content of a sexual nature that is perfectly legitimate (arts, sciences, and journalism in particular).
[1] See, e.g., the Scottish law after which the legislation is supposed to be modeled: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/extremepornographyguidanc/Q/pno/2 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/extremeporno...
- workbench 13y ago> purpose is to be titillating Who decides where the line is drawn?
- DanBC 13y agoA jury of your peers, applying the "man in the street" logic.
- rbehrends 13y agoThe courts. See the link. In practice, this definition has rarely [1] been a problem. There are more serious concerns. For example, a real problem with possession-based laws (as opposed to distribution-based laws) is how comparatively easy it is to frame innocent people [2]. Law enforcement likes possession-based laws, because they are an order of magnitude easier to prove and prosecute. [1] Which is not to say "never". [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11397515 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11397515