Adult chat roleplay

07 May

The rep pointed out that its efforts weren't always visible, though, since it sought to deal with such issues privately, and reminded players that "with millions of players in hundreds of servers and thousands of channels, it is impossible to manually monitor everywhere".However, noted dens of filth like the Goldshire Inn on Moon Guard will get special attention.This is legal dynamite - and in one single judgment catapults the UK to the back of the queue on a range of international indices on freedom of speech.The change to the law - or clarification as judges might describe it - came about in February when the Appeal Court ruled on a prosecution appeal in respect of an individual identified only as "GS".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".In the light of this ruling, GS, who had previously been defending against all counts, changed his plea to guilty.Back at Maidstone Crown Court in July 2012, before Judge Philip St John-Stevens, the court accepted his plea, dropped the indecent image charge – and sentence will be delivered on 7 September.

The latter, initially forecast by its proponents to lead to no more than 30 or so cases a year, last year notched up over 1,300 prosecutions - and an unknown number of cautions.

Weight is added to this contention by the IWF, who have told us that while they continue to report obscene adult content, hosted within the UK and publicly available online, they would not assess what was written in "a private online conversation".

The real danger lies in the fact that the history of UK law on matters sexual over the last couple of decades is that principles first introduced to protect children are often extended over time to other areas.

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.