b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 11002786 (Thread)

# so according to 65/8
fictional child porn is OK, I think. is in fact not ok
(, Thu 29 Aug 2013, 22:44, archived)
# But fictional tenticals are not real
so not humanist
(, Thu 29 Aug 2013, 22:46, archived)
# You mean as in words, not pictures?
Yep, that's all fine and dandy. Each case will be examined on its merits but it is extremely unlikely that any textual publication would be prosecuted (based on precedent).
(, Thu 29 Aug 2013, 22:47, archived)
# no, i mean pretty much anything that a certain mentalist posts
is not ok on the basis that it's fictional, I think XD

ok, I've not quite woken up yet, but having re read the sections, I think dave's work is covered by all of these.
except perhaps 65/8
(, Thu 29 Aug 2013, 23:09, archived)
# I think you're mis-reading 65/8
Specifically if an image of an imaginary child is found to be "child porn" then it will be treated in exactly the same way as an image of a real child.

So some of Dave's work (which thankfully I haven't seen, but have heard mentioned) probably is covered under this act.

So everyone who browsed this site and has one of his images in there cache should be mildly concerned.
(, Thu 29 Aug 2013, 23:20, archived)