The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Photos were 'grossly offensive' and not protected as free speech

It is illegal to send indecent or grossly offensive material to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient, even when it is done for political or educational reasons, the High Court has said. The conviction of Veronica Connolly was upheld on appeal this month. Connolly had sent pictures of aborted foetuses to pharmacies which …

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

"Grossly offensive or indecent"????

Pictures of aborted foetuses are a record of medical fact, not "grossly offensive".

I think this is a particularly insidious offence against our (largely non-existent) right to free speech : using the law to exclude facts and reality from a debate.

This same judgment could easily be used against journalists trying to expose the brutality of a military occupation (and thus silence critics of the USA, Israel, etc...) or the savage results of sharia law in action (and thus silence critics of Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc...).

This conviction was clearly a politically-motivated abuse of the Act it was brought under, and as such represents an abuse against Democracy.

I'm appalled this awful judgment went all the way to the High Court and yet still failed to be put right.

This topic is closed for new posts.