Talk:Virgin Killer controversies: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:That wouldn't be a good idea. The [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act#Indecent_images_of_children|Criminal Injustice and Racism Act]] criminalised any image which is derived from an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | :That wouldn't be a good idea. The [[Criminal Justice and Immigration Act#Indecent_images_of_children|Criminal Injustice and Racism Act]] criminalised any image which is derived from an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph. [[User:Brian|Brian]] 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
:I guess [http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/6253/4chanpc8.jpg this] wouldn't be very encyclopaedic. [[User:Jillium|Jillium]] 03:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
::So if VK is indecent, how rough does the derivative work have to be to be decent? What about a stick drawing or a drawing with adult features? [[User:Rez|Rez (The Administrators - anonym)]] 10:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:41, 10 December 2008
Are there any better non-photo copies of the image we can host here? Rez (The Administrators - anonym) 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be a good idea. The Criminal Injustice and Racism Act criminalised any image which is derived from an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph. Brian 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- So if VK is indecent, how rough does the derivative work have to be to be decent? What about a stick drawing or a drawing with adult features? Rez (The Administrators - anonym) 10:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)