www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/news/men-jailed-...-detail/article.html

Read the article to the end, and it becomes apparent that there were no actual child victims involved. I don't particularly like their area of fantasy interest, but I do think they should be allowed to talk about it if they wish.

Bit of therapy needed for both these clowns,and the prats who jailed them for a few pics and a dirty mind.

I have to say you are right...no actual kids involved apart from some pics exchanged (not that I could quite comprehend the whole story ).

Also-you say Innocent Accused that some therapy would be in order..how about this...one posed as a teen girl and the others chatted to "her"..( and is that a crime?)..

wouldn't it be a better idea for these fantasy merchants to have a phone-in number where they could ring up and chat and fantasise to the teen of their choice ??( who could be some old boiler on the other end as long as she sounded 13 )

This was a series of private conversations, causing neither harm nor offence, and there were no actual victims.

The state is therefore acting disproportionately in proscribing these mens' communication. This cannot be justified as "necessary in a democratic society" which is a requisite of any restriction on ECHR Article 10 entitlement to freedom of expression.

The convicted fellows can try that on appeal. I'm sure that won't be a waste of breath or anything

Goes deeper because common law is built on the whole idea of 'no harm, no loss' suffered.

Yes indeed, steveimp.

My opinion comes more from the positions set out by J S Mill in On Liberty, regarded as the ethical basis for modern liberal democratic society. In particular, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

The other principle suggested for the limitation of freedom is from Joel Feinberg "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor" which throws up a few obvious problems (what is offensive? how offensive is "seriously" offensive? offensive to whom? in what circumstances? etc) but probably has a minor role to play in society and law.

In a modern liberal democratic society (like the one we are told we live in) there is no other ethical basis for the restriction of freedom.

So, my issue with this case is that since all the accused men were talking willingly to each other about matters of common interest (however distasteful to others), no victims were harmed, neither could any of the men involved have been offended by what was communicated.