The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Beeb, British Museum face smut issues over saucy pot

One man, three boys, one cup

Agentless Backup is Not a Myth

The BBC and the British Museum could be in a tight spot if the legal system puts two and two together over a Roman cup which also puts two and two together... in a naked, underage sort of way.

A sharp-eyed Reg reader (who may now need locking up) draws to our attention the BBC’s online publicity for a Radio 4 series entitled The History of the World in 100 Objects. Featured prominently on the page publicising this series is a picture of the Warren Cup, a luxurious silver cup believed to have been used at Roman dinner parties.

The cup has previously been the subject of some controversy, for its no-holds-barred depiction of homoeroticism: in the 1950s US Customs refused to allow it into the United States, while over the years several museums (including our own British Museum) refused to buy it on the grounds it was probably unexhibitable.

According to the Beeb’s description of this objet d’art: "One side shows two teenage boys making love, while the other shows a young man lowering himself onto the lap of his elder, bearded lover. A slave-boy peers in voyeuristically from behind a door."

The problem with this image lies in the recently commenced Cartoon Law – aka s. 62 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 – which makes it an offence to possess depictions of "the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child".

Under UK law, reaffirmed in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, while the age of consent for sexual activity is 16, an individual remains a child until the age of 18.

According to an expert at the British Museum, which following a change of heart on this issue now also carries pictures of this image on its site: "The ages of the people depicted on the Warren Cup can be estimated from their clothing and hairstyle.”

They explained further that one of the youths depicted on the cup is aged 17 or 18, the other is "perhaps about 16". The boy watching the principals from a doorway is "perhaps 12/13".

The Cartoon Law does have one let-out – namely that the person in possession of a particular image had a "legitimate reason" for doing so. It is unclear, however, what might count as such a reason. In respect of other law in this area, opt-out clauses have been constructed to enable individuals such as police and network administrators to view images for the specific purpose of evaluating them for the purposes of law enforcement.

However, the courts have not been impressed in the past by high-profile defences of the sort claimed by rock guitarist Peter Townshend that he viewed child abuse images as part of "research" for a campaign to "counter damage done by all kinds of pornography on the internet".

We asked the Crown Prosecution Service if they could clarify the matter for us. A spokesman told us: “There is no list of legitimate reasons for possession of such images. Each case is different and must be considered on its own merits."

The Met Police declined to comment on the grounds that they have received no allegation of an offence being committed. ®

Cloud storage: Lower cost and increase uptime

Anonymous Coward

well

"The Met Police declined to comment on the grounds that they have received no allegation of an offence being committed. ®"

Someone best hurry up and report them so we can see this f---ing stupid law in action.

As by my reconing the kid on the cup isn't real and if he was real he's been dead for a real long time. Not that either matters to the f---ing lunatics that make up the police force/ceop/etc.

18
0

Great lawmaking there

I hadn't realised that: an adult can legally have sex with a 16 or 17 year old (as long as they consent of course), but if they take a picture or even a drawing of they'll be breaking the law.

Wondrous.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Dear Met

Here is an allegation of kiddie pr0n being in the posession of the BM.

Question - are there laws against audio porn yet, and if not, why not? Because any *description* of this object is going to be pr0n, surely? Which means that this elreg article is pr0n.

Where does it end?

6
0

More from The Register

 breaking news
Number of cops abusing Police National Computer access on the rise
Only a telegram from the Queen can get you off it
 breaking news
NSA whistleblower to tech firms, Obama: 'Grow a pair!'
Ed Snowden: Email tracking grabs 'IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything'
NSA: We COULD track you by your phone ... if we WANTED to
Honestly, too much work, can't be bothered
Google flings another £1m at online child sex abuse vid CRACKDOWN
See, see, we're trying, ad giant tells Daily Mail UK.gov
 breaking news
NSA PRISM-gate: Relax, GCHQ spooks 'keep us safe', says Cameron
Whatever they are up to, it's all above board, we're told
PRISM snitch claims NSA hacked Chinese targets since 2009
Snowden suddenly looks safer in Hong Kong after revelations
SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
 breaking news
US chief spook: Look, we only want to spy on 6.66 BEELLLION of you
Americans assured they are not in the NSA's sights