1996-04-04 - Re: CDA Court Challenge: Update #3

Header Data

From: sawyer@nextek.com (Thomas J. Sawyer)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: e12323793b0a9892033a93f6b35c404810125cadf3c4f6ac50efb88dd8a05a11
Message ID: <v02130500ad888f390f2e@[206.230.158.144]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-04 08:27:34 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 16:27:34 +0800

Raw message

From: sawyer@nextek.com (Thomas J. Sawyer)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 16:27:34 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: CDA Court Challenge: Update #3
Message-ID: <v02130500ad888f390f2e@[206.230.158.144]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>  * The DoJ is trying to draw a distinction between "indecent" images
>    of couples engaged in sexual intercourse and educational
>    "indecent" material that they will claim is not going to be
>    prosecuted under the CDA.

I wonder if they are considering any "artistic" indecent material that
would also not be prosecuted?
Maybe if Playboy remains themselves to "A Pictorial of The Female Body"
then it would be ok.

Just a thought anyway.

Thanks for reading,

Thomas J. Sawyer
sawyer@nextek.com







Thread