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
Putting it in the paper itself would be a different matter, of course…
no subject
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”.