Where's the dividing line between realistic CGI representations of illegal acts and grainy video footage of the real thing?
The law may make no distinction, but the dividing line should be clear: whether or not an actual person was the victim of the illegal act depicted.
As for 'the law is about images depicting illegal acts' ... I'm not convinced. Does that mean the recent series of Barnardo's adverts, including a child injecting itself with heroin, were illegal?
One person's corruption is another person's creepy fantasy. I suspect there are quite a lot of sites (words, images, video, music) on the internet that are neither legal nor moral, but nevertheless allows someone to get a thrill from imagining the behaviour described.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mmmag
no subject
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2007 02:52 pm (UTC)The law may make no distinction, but the dividing line should be clear: whether or not an actual person was the victim of the illegal act depicted.
As for 'the law is about images depicting illegal acts' ... I'm not convinced. Does that mean the recent series of Barnardo's adverts, including a child injecting itself with heroin, were illegal?
One person's corruption is another person's creepy fantasy. I suspect there are quite a lot of sites (words, images, video, music) on the internet that are neither legal nor moral, but nevertheless allows someone to get a thrill from imagining the behaviour described.