From: "Rev. Ben" <samman-ben@CS.YALE.EDU>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 95 08:28:24 PDT
To: Den of CryptoAnarchists <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: WAS_tem
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91.950914112732.17274B-100000@FROG.ZOO2.CS.YALE.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

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 
porn regulation?  That is, doesn't current statute exist in order to 
prevent the exploitation of children, not to mandate morality?

Do the lawyers on the list want to pipe up?

Ben.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Auto-signed with Bryce's Auto-PGP v1.0beta3

iQB1AwUBMFhKCL5ALmeTVXAJAQG+eAMAstVn+sOOQkEI8ri6/jroSAwA8oCU5Fzu
qRQfeOCnWJxqEeCE75orzaXIJFTIG3+qWdbKlsYNqS5MglPfI70Iw0Iw3VEtbHRB
YZ595Aj6WXbBr3Z9SyR0mOCgN1twu2ds
=+t1l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----