Re: Man faces child porn charges after altering adult pictures

The Todal wrote:
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4i165eF1jn2qU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Todal wrote:
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4i1568F1g65aU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
NewsHound wrote:
MAN FACES CHILD PORN CHARGES AFTER ALTERING ADULT PICTURES

The Northern Echo, UK: 17 July 2006
http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.836640.0.man_faces_child_porn_charges_after_altering_adult_pictures.php
[ http://tinyurl.com/k7zuq ]

A COMPUTER expert could make legal history when he challenges
child pornography charges in court.

Lawyers acting for Sven Tudor-Miles will try next month to have
the allegations of making indecent images of children thrown out -
because the pictures are of adults.

Mr Tudor-Miles accepts that he created the images by scanning
pornographic photographs into his computer and digitally
manipulating them.

The 38-year-old, from Teesside, used his technical know-how to
reduce the breast sizes and alter the genitalia of the women.

Hmmmm , IIRC the offence refers to people who appear to be under 18
so that the prosecution aren't obliged to identify the particular
model and the date/age at which the photos were taken.

If the bloke can prove that the people were indeed over 18 and have
been photoshopped to make them look younger , is this a valid
defence....... Could be interesting.

I don't really understand this - I would have thought that if you
have a picture of an adult which is altered with software to look
like a photograph of a child, it becomes a pseudo-photograph which
is therefore capable of being unlawful. Protection of Children Act
http://www.geocities.com/pca_1978/reference/pca_1978amSOA.html#1

But the whole point of these laws is to protect children from harm.

If everyone is in agreement that the pictures are of a consenting
adult , what harm does photoshopping them do?
Certainly no children have been exploited or abused.

Although I tend to agree, I suppose the reasoning might be
a) a pseudo photograph which purports to show a child, helps to
encourage a market in child pornography

Maybe.
It could also be argued that this is a substitute for child pron , reducing
the demand for the real stuff.

b) if people were allowed to escape conviction just by altering a
photograph of a child so that the face and other features became
unrecognisable, children would not be protected sufficiently.

But the image there would still be of a child

Or has the law changed?

The laws were changed recently

Oh, what are the changes then? I assume you mean recently, and not
the 1988 Act.

Wasn't there a bunch of changes in the Sexual offences act 2003 that came
into force a year later.

I think that was the one that raised the age for indecent images of children
to 18 from 16
--
Alex

Piece by piece the penguins have taken my sanity
www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk


.

Relevant Pages