View Single Post
Old 25-05-2013, 13:29
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Newark, Notts, UK
Posts: 6,856
First decent thing MWT has done. It is totally out of order for journalists to think this is ok. Anyone else who did this would be described as a vile pedophile using "research" as an excuse.
Indeed. Child porn offences don't have a "public interest" defence.

Having said that, I doubt the stuff she describes was actually child porn or that it is that easy to find. Most of what she describes sounds like the usual "teen" porn featuring young looking women.
I'm guessing that's the case, however, even that sort of porn could potentially be illegal, if you could convince a jury that a reasonable person would think someone in it was under 18.

YMMV on whether this Mail journalist is a "reasonable person"...
Cryolemon is offline Follow this poster on Twitter