dating woman norway - Adult fantasy chat
You could be committing a criminal offence next time you discuss your deepest fantasies with someone online. That means it is therefore perfectly possible for the content of online chat, should a jury decide that it is capable of "depraving or corrupting", to be judged "obscene" - and as such for one or both participants in that conversation to be guilty of a criminal offence that carries a sentence of up to five years in prison, and a stint on the sex offenders' register.
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.
Mimicking a saucy adult phoneline chat, ‘Parent Fantasy Hotline’ sees a heavy-breathing Hamish calling Andy and delighting in all the details of his mate's commitment-free, sleep-heavy weekend.
“It is Babestations’ understanding, through both the recent media coverage, and contact with a number of professional bodies, that there may have been unintentional calls made to residents of Westport.
Babestation recognise this as an innocent misunderstanding and they are extremely aware that disappointed callers in Ireland, whose intention it was to speak to one of the Babestation girls, may have inadvertently reached homes on the west coast of Ireland.
Their judgment was published in full, earlier this week, by blogger Obscenity Lawyer, a solicitor and one of the UK's leading legal experts providing advice to defendants on matters of obscenity and extreme porn.
The judgment states (par 21): There could be no sensible reason for the legislature having excluded otherwise obscene material from the scope of the legislation, merely because it was likely to be read by, and therefore liable to deprave and corrupt, only one person...
Initially, the legal reaction was that such a case could not possibly succeed - and that was pretty much the view of the judge who threw it out when first it arrived at Maidstone Crown Court in November 2011.