I'm deliberately conflating two different things, actually. Firstly, what they've actually done is make granting an injunction protecting Moseley's privacy pointless, by spreading the offending material widely.
Secondly (as a friend pointed out; the observation is not original to me) the nature of the material (as described; I've not seen it myself) is not a million miles from that proposed to be prohibited as “extreme pornography”.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-04-09 11:08 am (UTC)I'm deliberately conflating two different things, actually. Firstly, what they've actually done is make granting an injunction protecting Moseley's privacy pointless, by spreading the offending material widely.
Secondly (as a friend pointed out; the observation is not original to me) the nature of the material (as described; I've not seen it myself) is not a million miles from that proposed to be prohibited as “extreme pornography”.