• floofloof@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    According to the article he was sent the images by another man, he repeatedly asked the man not to send underage images, and he didn’t keep the images or forward them. He was charged with making indecent images of children and pleaded guilty. Does this mean that anyone who is sent such images can be legally guilty of this, even if they don’t request or want the images and delete them right away? Could malicious parties use this to get anyone they choose into trouble by sending them images? Or are there other considerations that go into making such a charge?

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      According to the Crown Prosecution Service, making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include receiving them via social media.

      Edwards’s barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: “There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has… in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.”


      Could malicious parties use this to get anyone they choose into trouble by sending them images?

      Yes, I think so.

      • gasgiant@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Only if they didn’t report such a message/activity and fully cooperate.

        My understanding is that if you are party to things like this and don’t take the required action then you are liable to this wider definition of making.

        So you are essentially complicit in the making of them because you didn’t try and stop/report it in a timely manner.

        Happens with loads of other stuff like murders, terror, theft etc… Basically if you know about serious crimes and don’t take any action. Then you can be found guilty of a very similar offence as the people who committed the exact offence.

    • TedZanzibar@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      According to the Crown Prosecution Service, making indecent images can have a wide definition in the law and can include receiving them via social media.

      Edwards’s barrister Philip Evans KC told the court: “There’s no suggestion in this case that Mr Edwards has… in the traditional sense of the word, created any image of any sort.”

      I suppose the facts that he a) retained some of the images, b) didn’t report having received them and c) continued talking to the man has some bearing on his charges.

    • HelloThere@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes, and yes.

      It’s a very silly aspect of the law, which made sense before digital distribution (e.g making photocopies) but needs amending now.

    • wtfrank@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Has anyone heard what’s happened to the guy who sent the images? This presumably is the greater crime but there has been silence in the coverage I’ve seen