Reply to post: @AC - "Not Pornography"

IWF shares 'hash list' with web giants to flush out child sex abuse images online

Graham Marsden

@AC - "Not Pornography"

"Nasty, horrific, criminal stuff."

ORLY?

Samantha Fox and other models like her posed for photographs when they were 16. This was perfectly legal and above board with no exploitation, nothing horrific and no criminality.

Then, some years ago, the Government of The Vicar of St Albions decided that this sort of thing wasn't acceptable to their prudish moralistic standards and decided to redefine "child" from "someone under 16" to "someone under 18".

So now such images are classed as "child pornography" or, if you prefer "abuse".

Of course our witch-burning tabloids were delighted that images of someone who is over the legal age of consent for sexual activity were now criminalised...

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019