From: hex@unseen.ac.am 
  
 On 20/09/2025 16:33, JNugent wrote: 
 > On 20/09/2025 07:40 AM, Norman Wells wrote: 
 >> On 20/09/2025 01:27, JNugent wrote: 
  
 >>> Q: Was it "communication" (even if only attempted)? 
 >>> 
 >>> A: Of course it was. 
 >>> 
 >>> Q: Was it malicious? 
 >>> 
 >>> A: Of course it was. 
 >> 
 >> Of course it wasn't. 
 >> 
 >> Your misunderstanding shows just how important it is to have a knowledge 
 >> of the relevant law or actually to look it up if you haven't. 
 >> 
 >> And the relevant law is, unsurprisingly, the Malicious Communications 
 >> Act 1988, which you need to read. 
 >> 
 >> Section 1 of that says: 
 >> 
 >> "Any person who sends to another person€€€ 
 >> 
 >> (a) a letter, electronic communication or article of any description] 
 >> which conveys€€€ 
 >> 
 >> (i) a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; 
 >> 
 >> (b) any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, 
 >> of an indecent or grossly offensive nature, 
 >> 
 >> is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in 
 >> sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or 
 >> (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other 
 >> person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be 
 >> communicated." 
 >> 
 >> Nothing in the Windsor case was 'sent', so there is in fact no 
 >> 'communication' within the scope of the Act, whether malicious or not. 
 > 
 > What does the rest of the Act say? 
  
 Nothing of any relevance as far as I can see.  How about you? 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)