Re: UK Censorship

I saw this point of view stated in the Wikinews article as well, but 
I thought it sounded suspicious to me so I asked some lawyers about it.

According to all lawyers I've talked to, the reasoning below is 
incorrect -- the Miller Test is a defense against obscenity charges 
but it is not a defense against child pornography charges.  If a 
picture shows a real minor doing sexual things then no amount of 
artistic merit is a defense.  The only defense is that the picture 
isn't actually sexual, and of course pictures of naked children are 
not automatically sexual which is why they're not illegal.

         -Bennett

At 09:05 PM 12/9/2008, Ronald Chmara wrote:

>On Dec 9, 2008, at 9:56 AM, DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS wrote:
>
> >  I simply don't have information to make a determination,
> > but I've lived on this planet long enough to know that picture was
> > never
> > acceptable in America (1776 to date).
>
>Wrong.
>
>The Miller test has three prongs, each of which must be satisfied:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test
>
>The (S)LAPS test is the one you're looking for, where "[Serious]
>Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific" value exempts speech from
>being classified as obscene.
>
>While you're at it, read up on:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
>
>Basically, legally claiming works of art with naked children are
>'obscene', simply because somebody finds it offensive, is
>unconstitutional in the United States..
>
>Not only has such an artistic image (Virgin Killer) depicting a naked
>child picture been legal *since the founding fathers drew up the bill
>of rights*, repeated attempts to legislatively change this have
>failed, because doing so would require changing the wording of no
>less than the Constitution of the United States. (We take that
>document kind of seriously here, our military swears allegiance to it
>*over* our president, our congress, etc.)
>
>Other nations find banning art, or political ideas, or science, or
>literature in the name of "obscenity" acceptable, but since its
>founding, the US has rejected such ideas.
>
>I can't believe I've having to publicly lecture somebody with a
>@dfas.mil email address about this.
>
>-Bop