From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@polaris.mindport.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 95 15:40:51 PDT
To: "S. Keeling" <keelings@wu1.wl.aecl.ca>
Subject: Re: WAS_tem (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <9509162012.AA29482@wu1.wl.aecl.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950917184021.17849C-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, S. Keeling wrote:

> Incoming from Rev. Ben:
> > 
> > On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, James A. Donald wrote:
> > 
> > > If you draw a picture using paintbrush of an underage person engaging
> > > in sexual conduct, you are in violation of this proposed legislation.
> > 
> > Doesn't that directly contradict the stated purpose of existing child 
> [snip]
> > 
> > Do the lawyers on the list want to pipe up?

The current child pornography laws are entirely misguided and poorly written.

> -- 
> 
>  "Remember, obsolescence (Win95) isn't an accident;  it's an art form!" 
>    keelings@wu1.wl.aecl.ca       s. keeling,   aecl - whiteshell labs
> 

---
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information