Posting offensive images to a social media network could get you a jail sentence.

[TLR-330]

There are subjects which are prohibited, e.g. child pornography whether making or downloading or if you fancy start doing some searching around terrorist groups and bomb making. Seeing a photograph of a dead body is not prohibited AFAIK. Bu the stupid bugger made two mistakes, first publishing it, and second possibly taking it because we believe he opened a body bag or removed a cover. Then we have the argument a newspaper could have published it ... perhaps they could, they hacked a dead child's phone to get a story why not publish that. I cannot say if the newspaper would have come out clean for "interfering" with the body had it published the photo. too hypothetical for my two brain cells.

 

[onomatopoeia]

R v Waddon, unreported, 6 April 2000, a case relating to the publication of obscene article, the Court of Appeal held that the content of American websites could come under British jurisdiction when downloaded in the United Kingdom: images published on a website abroad were further published when downloaded in the UK.

In practice this only affects people in the UK publishing on the Internet, wherever the site is hosted. The home office is not going to be seeking millions of extradition orders against foreign websites that host pornography that might be "obscene" under 1959 legislation (though probably won't be, juries are far more broad-minded than the CPS, see R v Peacock for an example)

 

[DemiLion]

In practice this only affects people in the UK publishing on the Internet, wherever the site is hosted. The home office is not going to be seeking millions of extradition orders against foreign websites that host pornography that might be "obscene" under 1959 legislation (though probably won't be, juries are far more broad-minded than the CPS, see R v Peacock for an example)

Of course they aren't but the fact remains that they have the capacity to.

 

[DemiLion]

There are subjects which are prohibited, e.g. child pornography whether making or downloading or if you fancy start doing some searching around terrorist groups and bomb making. Seeing a photograph of a dead body is not prohibited AFAIK. Bu the stupid bugger made two mistakes, first publishing it, and second possibly taking it because we believe he opened a body bag or removed a cover. Then we have the argument a newspaper could have published it ... perhaps they could, they hacked a dead child's phone to get a story why not publish that. I cannot say if the newspaper would have come out clean for "interfering" with the body had it published the photo. too hypothetical for my two brain cells.

You are still largely missing the point. The taking of the image, the viewing of it and it's publication are not the issue here. It's communication is.

 

[Phil V]

You are still largely missing the point. The taking of the image, the viewing of it and it's publication are not the issue here. It's communication is.

Just to add, the viewing or downloading of an image in the UK is considered to be 'making a copy' because technically (though not intentionally) that's correct.

IMHO when internet porn became a 'thing' the law changed subtly, owning a hard copy of something carries a lower sentence than viewing it on a computer.

Almost no one is interested in causing a fuss about it as who wants to be seen as on the side of child pornographers?

Likewise in this case, the 'sharing' of an image is considered publishing or distribution, which is a different kettle of fish to taking or possessing an offensive image. And as we saw in the recent cyclist case, behaviour online surrounding an incident will influence the sentence.

 

[Mozthecat]

Is it just me that wonders if the speed an result of the whole process was to send a clear message to the community not to push their luck in terms of photos or other actions regarding the site?

Thinking to other examples I recall people trying to eBay parts of the challenger space shuttle a few years ago...