1997-07-15 - Re: Making Imaginary Sex Illegal

Header Data

From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Message Hash: 18dc6e26d6306009d3e5ba2fd318a7d158f874c4d4c2e3b11ba109b3e0cc5859
Message ID: <v03102802aff173397d63@[10.0.2.15]>
Reply To: <33CAC79B.6293@nwdtc.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-15 19:41:14 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 03:41:14 +0800

Raw message

From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 03:41:14 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Making Imaginary Sex Illegal
In-Reply-To: <33CAC79B.6293@nwdtc.com>
Message-ID: <v03102802aff173397d63@[10.0.2.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 12:25 PM -0400 7/15/97, Unprivileged user wrote:
>> http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/5153.html
>>
>> Making Imaginary Sex Illegal
>>
>> by Ashley Craddock
>>
>> So maybe it shouldn't be surprising that Congress has made it a
>> criminal offense to depict non-obscene, sexually explicit material
>> involving anyone who "appears to be" a minor. Maybe it shouldn't be
>> surprising that it made it a criminal offense to advertise materials in
>> any way that "conveys the impression" that minors will be sexually
>> depicted.
>>
>> But what about the fact that Congress explicitly designed the law to
>> make computer-simulated child porn illegal?
>
>If "computer-simulated" images are legal, how can you tell that it is
>computer simulated?  Everyone will then claim to be a talented artist, or
>use reverse aging algorithms on adult porn photos, or just use enough
>obvious features on a real picture to show computer alteration.  Or,
>simply have a CG artist render the live scene?  Which category would that
>be?  JPEG is a lossy compression technique - would that alteration to a
>photograph be considered "computer simulation".
>

Exactly. Like crypto, technology is making moot these Nanny laws, but the
legislators don't get it.  I completely reject Congress' and the SC's
different treatment of porn and graphic violence in the media.  Either both
or neither should be banned. The real issue is: Thought Crime.  Should
society have the right to control information content which cannot be shown
to directly endanger or harm specific parties?  I and many libertarians
would say HELL NO.

--Steve

PGP encrypted mail PREFERRED (See MIT/BAL servers for my PK)
PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61  81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schear (N7ZEZ)     | Internet: azur@netcom.com
7075 West Gowan Road     | Voice: 1-702-658-2654
Suite 2148               | Fax: 1-702-658-2673
Las Vegas, NV 89129      |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

        God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
        The courage to change the things I can;
        The weapons that make the difference;
        And the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people that got in my way;-)

        "Surveilence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus,
        potential entertainment."
        --G. Beato

       "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million
        typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of
        Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is
        not true."                           -- Dr. Robert Silensky







Thread