Start American sex text chat

American sex text chat

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.

It cannot be stressed just how ground-breaking this verdict is.

The Obscene Publications Act celebrates its 53rd birthday this year.

I get to say exactly what I want exactly when I want to say it. Americans ages 18-29 send and receive an average of nearly 88 text messages per day, compared to 17 phone calls.

They meant a conversation I could control — utterly. (Read about the TIME Mobility Poll here.) The telephone call is a dying institution. Not all of that growth has come out of the hide of old-fashioned phoning, but it is clearly taking a bite — particularly among the young.

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...

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.

This focus was picked upon by barrister Roger Daniells-Smith, who in an early appearance on behalf of GS reportedly told the court: "We say this is a moral crusade by Kent Police to extend the law, to try to get this material included as extreme pornography." Kent Police reject this.

They told us: "The only crusade Kent Police is on is to protect children from abuse including sexual exploitation. closes one door where people that would abuse children share and indulge in their fantasies online without the use of images, and prior to now have felt beyond the reach of the law in doing so." A spokeswoman for the Crown Prosecution Service explained: "The ruling reinforces the interpretation of 'persons' to include one person".

Defenders of the court ruling would argue that there was nothing defensible about the content of the chat logs, which pertained to “explicit conversation concerning incestuous, sadistic paedophil[ic] sex acts on young and very young children".