+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
And some hard line Libertarians wouldn't have any censorship. Instead, they'd allow the people to regulate. Keep the old State interference to a minimum. The Free thinker in this thread is also posting BBC links, as well as The Sun. Aren't they mainstream? Are we not told by the gifted that we shouldn't believe these outlets, or is it only when something is written that they agree with? And i thought that i was a mess.
You mean you don't think the Sun publishing topless photos of a sixteen year old qualifies as
"Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, it is an offence to 'make, distribute, possess or show any indecent images of anyone aged under 18' - even if it was created with the young person's consent."
then?
Salacious gossip sells, always has always will. Whether that be politicians, film stars, footballers, soap stars, or BBC "stars"
Always a bit better for the papers when they can sight illegality or moral hypocrisy but it doesn't matter
If Prince Harry and his rich connected mates have their way they can carry on with impunity.
The gutter press has always been there to prick the establishment, left or right they do a job.
Public interest or interesting to the public, it pretty much dictates if you are likely to be part of the second group.
I have no idea what anyone does with the wild west of social media, that genie is well out of the bottle.
Having started this thread and posted how we are, in effect, paying for this kind of alleged behaviour through our TV licences, he’s now got himself into a position where he seems to be saying that if the unknown celebrity paid the seventeen year old to allow him to take topless photos of her, it’s okay after all.
I don't want to defend the sun as I despise them but the under 18 limit was introduced in 2003. The people who drafted and voted the 1978 Bill through parliament thought 16 year olds were fair game and the sun exploited that to post pictures of a 16 year old child.