Reply to post:

Petulant Facebook claims it can't tell the difference between child abuse and war photography

ckdizz

Strict liability means there is no defence except statutory exceptions. It doesn't mean that a naked photo of a child is indecent - it's not the definition of the image that matters, but the culpability of the offender. In other words, is there mens rea, or is there enough to prove a guilty mind.

Distribution of indecent images of a child is a strict liability offence with only a couple of statutory exceptions (from memory, it's good cause to distribute and lack of knowledge of the contents), but what constitutes an indecent image isn't defined by the fact that distribution is a strict liability offence.

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