so according to 65/8fictional child porn is OK, I think. is in fact not ok
(
real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Thu 29 Aug 2013, 22:44,
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).
(
Ghoti Fingers,
Thu 29 Aug 2013, 22:47,
archived)
no, i mean pretty much anything that a certain mentalist postsis 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
(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
real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Thu 29 Aug 2013, 23:09,
archived)
I think you're mis-reading 65/8Specifically 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.
(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.
Ghoti Fingers,
Thu 29 Aug 2013, 23:20,
archived)