They added: "Most obscene material relates to books, magazines, films and DVDs.
The OPA also applies to anything published on the internet, whether text, pictures or online chat".
The case has been wending its way through the legal system since April 2010, when GS was charged with nine counts of publishing an obscene article contrary to section 2(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959, and one count of possessing an indecent image.
What was particularly innovative was that the material in question was a series of text logs of online chats between GS and one other individual.
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.
I was completely naked – under my pants, bra, tights, dress and flat shoes.
I deliberately decided not to dress “slutty”, whatever that means, because the right to wear a thong in public was not one of the things I was marching for.
Initially, the legal reaction was that such a case could not possibly succeed - and that was pretty much the view of the judge who threw it out when first it arrived at Maidstone Crown Court in November 2011.
But that was before an appeal brought by the prosecution in February of this year, and the appeal court ruling in which three appeal judges - Lord Justice Richards, Mr Justice Kenneth Parker and Mr Justice Lindblom - ruled unequivocally that publication to an individual did fall within the meaning of the OPA.