1994-12-06 - AABBS Conviction relation to child porn?

Header Data

From: ED KELLY <edkelly@INS.INFONET.NET>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 4a59898be4a3d721334de4ede622e1e7e2edf1b6db764a103d8c883d799248aa
Message ID: <0098881E.4950521B.51@INS.INFONET.NET>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-12-06 05:12:59 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 21:12:59 PST

Raw message

From: ED KELLY <edkelly@INS.INFONET.NET>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 94 21:12:59 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: AABBS Conviction relation to child porn?
Message-ID: <0098881E.4950521B.51@INS.INFONET.NET>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


     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:
 
 
COUNT 1:
 
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE FEDERAL OBSCENITY LAWS BY
DISTRIBUTING OBSCENE MATERIALS (see following)
 
    --------------------------
COUNT 2:
 
"AA-8589.GIF"  described as "SHE SUCKS HER SON'S COCK!
FATHER IS FUCKING HIS DAUGHTER !" 
 
    --------------------------
    
COUNT 3:
 
"AA-8278.GIF" described as "FULL SCREEN VIEW!
A HAIRLESS PUSSY  NAILED TO A TABLE!", 
 
"AA-7153.GIF" described as "MOTHER IS WATCHING 
HER DAUGHTER FUCK BIG COCK! NO TITS!",
 
"AA-8682.GIF" described as "HE MAKES HIS DAUGHTER 
SUCK COCK!  SHE IS FISTING HER SISTER!", and 
 
"AA-11935.GIF" described as "HE FUCKS HIS DAUGHTERS 
HAIRLESS  CUNT!"  SHE FISTS HER MOTHER!"
 
    --------------------------
 
COUNT 4:
 
"AA-15198.GIF" described as "BLONDE LOLITA HAS NO TITS!
SUCKS HUGE COCK AND DRINKS SPERM!"
 
     -------------------------
 
COUNT  5:
 
"AA-13216.GIF" described as "PUSSY PENETRATION!
HORNY BRUNETTE GETS FUCKED BY A HORSE!"
 
     -------------------------
 
COUNT 6:
 
"AA-13517.GIF" described as "HORNY BLONDE JACKS OFF 
HORSE!  HORSE CUM ON HER HANDS!"',
 
"'AA-13521.GIF" described as "CLOSE-UP!  BIG HORSE 
COCK IN HER CUNT! HORSE CUM ON HER LEG", and
 
"AA-16587.GIF" described as "'SHE SUCKS THICK DOG
COCK! DOG SPERM ON HER LIPS AND CHIN."
 
    --------------------------
    
COUNT 7:
 
"AA-17623.GIF" described as "YOUNG ASIAN HAS A 
THICK CLIT!  DRINKS PISS FROM AN UNCUT  COCK!"
 
 
    --------------------------
    
COUNT 8:
 
 . . . used an express company and common
carrier, United Parcel Service (UPS), for carriage
in interstate commerce from California to Tennessee
an obscene video cassette tape
 
    --------------------------
    
COUNT 9:
 
 . . . used an express company and common
carrier, United Parcel Service (UPS), for carriage
in interstate commerce from California to Tennessee
obscene video cassette tapes
 
    --------------------------
    
COUNT 10:
 
 . . . used an express company and common
carrier, United Parcel Service (UPS), for carriage
in interstate commerce from California to Tennessee
obscene video cassette tapes
 
    --------------------------
    
COUNT 11:
 
 . . . shipped in interstate commerce by means of the 
United States Mail, visual depictions, the production
of which involved the use of a minor engaging in sexually 
explicit conduct, . . . involving (three (3) magazines, 
bearing titles of "Little Girls Fuck Too!", "Lolita Colour 
Special 6" and "Lolita Color Special 18"
 
    --------------------------
    
COUNT 12:
 
FORFEITURE ALLEGATIONS involving any instrumentalities of
committing crimes.
 
 
     The Grand Jury voted to charge the defendants 
with all of the above crimes.  The trial jury, did 
not convict the defendant of the one count charging child
pornography -- perhaps because it was never proved that
the defendants opened it (see Count 11).
 
     Although the convictions of the defendants 
in the Amateur Action BBS case were not technically
for violation of federal child pornography laws, if the 
defendant's own descriptions of their wares is correct, 
I think the jury might have convicted them because of
the apparant inclusion of children in their materials.  
People do not need to feel bad about convictions of 
those who peddle depictions showing children in sex acts.
 
 
Reasonable people may disagree about important issues.
But, I do not feel protected speech or electronic 
communication was endangered by the defendants' shipment
and sale of their described materials.
 
ED KELLY





Thread