i spoke directly to the Crown Prosecution Service about the scope of the Act and possible defences.
The problem with this particular law is that it is untried (literally) and so is in the lap of a jury.
The "produced for sexual purposes" clauses has yet to be tested in respect of this OR the extreme porn law.
The issue? Well, if it relates to the purpose of the original maker of the filom/image/whatever, then there is one defence available. On t'other hand, if it relates to the intentions of the downloader - because remember, in UK law, downloading = making of an image - then we are in very different territory.
I agree that the primary purpose of the cup was for drinking...but you'd have to be a lawyer of the highest water to stop at that point.
M'lud: here is a cup. Insofar as it is a cup, it is clearly for drinking. However, on the side of the cup is a drawing. What is the purpose of the drawing? Can we in any way say that the drawing is "for drinking"? No. The drawing is separate to the cup. It is an add-on that neither adds nor detracts from the function of the cup.
The cup is made for the purpose of drinking: the drawing was made for the purpose of titillating the drinker. Given the nature of the drawing, it must be highly likely that the effect created by any drinker sat contemplating this object would have been sexual - arousal even. The maker of the drawing must have understood that.
The drawing was created for purposes of sexual arousal. QED.
On t'other hand, whilst that is an argument about the rationale for creating the drawing, there is also the issue of why any given individual would possess the image.
M'lud - again. The individual before you has no interest in history whatsoever. He plays football, runs the local scout group, and had an extensive collection of child porn. He also has a series of pics on his pc which are taken from historical artefacts. Every one of these pics depicts some antique scene of sodomy or otherwise unnatural vice.
I put it to you that the purpose for which this individual posesses this image is quite separate from the purpose for which the British museum possesses it - and is clearly for purposes of sexual arousal.
So... i think the argument is makeable...though whether a court would accept it is another matter.
as for detail, i spend half my life reading through legislative detail. Do you?