|
|
|
|
|
by lucozade
2768 days ago
|
|
I would hope they’ve had chilling effects or what would be the point of the legislation? The 20 probably refers to the CPS’s VAWG report in 2012. As I’m sure you’re aware that was 20 cases that had magistrates’ hearings covered by section 62. Not convictions and not just cartoons (I don’t believe there were any cartoons but I could be mistaken). It was somewhat more the following year but still very low, <200. If that has helped reduce the amount of child porn entering the UK from abroad then that’s great. I doubt it though. No idea what this has to do with Google. TBH if your work actually flouts section 62 then I’m 100% ok with you stopping. I see no particular need to support someone’s freedom to express depictions of child sex. Freedom of expression has far more important battles to fight than that. |
|
[0] https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/publica... (page 71, A50)