From: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 94 16:35:38 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: AABBS Conviction relation to child porn?
In-Reply-To: <0098881E.4950521B.51@INS.INFONET.NET>
Message-ID: <199412070035.QAA18461@netcom13.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


ED KELLY <edkelly@INS.INFONET.NET> writes:

 > There is hoopla over the convictions of those who ran the
 > Amateur Action BBS.  The actual charges involve stuff that
 > sounded like it was intended to be distributed as child
 > pornography. The indictment described the offensive material
 > being destributed as follows in each count:

I think you have your wires crossed here.  There was no claim
made that the models were underage in any of the erotica you
cite. The material was deemed to be obscene because it depicted
things such as incest, bestiality, foreign object insertion,
piercing, and other non-mainstream sexual themes.  Everyone was
over 18 in all the pictures you mention, and the only material on
the BBS which depicted children was legal nudist material scanned
from reputable sources.

Since the original complaint from the "outraged citizen" which
prompted the investigation and subsequent entrapment was about
nudist GIFs, which were perfectly legal, one might argue that the
obscenity charges were just an indirect way to nail AA for daring
to have nude kid pix available on their BBS.  Certainly there are
plenty of places in Tennesee where "specialty" erotica can be
purchased which are not being prosecuted with similar zeal.

-- 
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $