is more in the eye of the beholder than anything. The question of legality, no
matter what the justification depends on the jurisdiction.
At 08:40 PM 6/16/03 +1000, you wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question. Definitely hypothetical, my wife's not that kind of girl.
Presuming that a person took pornographic photos (not of anything illegal, of course), but never intended to distribute them and always meant to keep them private, is that illegal or immoral? That is, if it's legal to perform certain acts, and thus see them as a participant, is it nevertheless an offence to photograph those acts even for strictly private viewing?
I'm not making presumptions about Bob Shell, it just happens to remind me of a circumstance in Australia about 30 years ago, where a celebrity ran foul of the law because he had a private collection of intimate photographs of himself and his wife.
regards, Anthony Farr
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(snip) > There is another possibility, if as Greywolf says Shell was producing > "pornography", real > or imagined the local prosecutor may be out to make Roanoke "safe for God > Fearing people". > > (earlier message snipped)
To grasp the true meaning of socialism, imagine a world where everything is designed by
the post office, even the sleaze.
O'Rourke, P.J.
