Defenders of the court ruling would argue that there was nothing defensible about the content of the chat logs, which pertained to “explicit conversation concerning incestuous, sadistic paedophil[ic] sex acts on young and very young children".
Surely this is no more than a minor change in the law having little effect on anyone who is not themselves a dangerous paedophile?
The only thing that I considered faintly provocative about my outfit was my butter soft leather jacket, but unless I rushed up to a stranger and said “hey, cop a feel of my sexy jacket” I thought passers by would go unprovoked.
A ruling slipped out quietly by the Appeal Court earlier this year, and lurking in the background while the substantive case to which it applied came to court, makes it plain: the act of publishing as defined within the Obscene Publications Act can take place with an audience of just one individual.This focus was picked upon by barrister Roger Daniells-Smith, who in an early appearance on behalf of GS reportedly told the court: "We say this is a moral crusade by Kent Police to extend the law, to try to get this material included as extreme pornography." Kent Police reject this.