Judge Warns Against Keeping 'Truly Disgusting' Porn on Phone

LONDON—A British judge has sentenced two men to conditional discharge and issued fines for having "truly disgusting" images and videos on their cell phones, and while doing so took the opportunity to issue a general warning to the public about porn on phones that has been dutifully picked up by the U.K. press. "You have pleaded guilty to possessing truly disgusting images," Old Bailey judge Paul Worsley QC told the men in court. "It makes a big difference if someone goes out of their way to seek it, or if they're sent it by some mischievous colleague. In your case it was unsolicited. "This is an exceptional case in some ways," he added. "The public should not find this carte blanche to possess material of this nature." The only problem is, there is scant mention in any news report of precisely what sort of "extreme pornographic image likely to cause injury," which is how the law defines the crime, was on either man's phone. Both men were also hit with charges relating to "possessing pornographic images involving animals," but that's as detailed an explanation of the content as one gets. "Both men said they had received the content from an unknown source, and had been unable to watch it all due to feeling 'sickened,'" reported the Buxton Advertiser. "The videos and image were later recovered by police after they stopped the defendants, both from Essex, in London in January on an unrelated matter." One of the defendants told the court, "I deleted the videos from my Whatsapp, but I had no ideas they would save to my camera roll. I didn't even watch the full content of the video. It was very sick and disturbing." The judge admitted that "there was no evidence of the defendants sharing the content, or the men getting sexual gratification from them," but still "handed both defendants a two-year conditional discharge and told them to each pay £500 costs." But it's the judge's public warning about disgusting and illegal content that each individual is left to imagine that will be the real take-away from this case. Nothing like imposing a little subjectivity on the law.