From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 15:12:03 +0800
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: On the Hill: Child Porn "Morphing"
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960604163805.11159A-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Hearings on the hill over the child pornographer horseman:

"Morphing" seems to be the latest buzzword for putting childrens faces on 
the bodies of adult models in sexually explicit poses and seems to have 
attracted enough attention to warrant congressional attention.

Interesting that the media is playing this up as a "net" deal.  (As if 
somehow it were impossible to do without the all powerful and evil internet.

I'd like to see exactly how they word the proposed prohibitons.  What 
constitutes "child" when the face painted on is pure artistry?  Will we 
see a simple and strict prohibition over modifiying sexually explicit 
pictures to make them appear to be of younger models (whatever their 
apparent age may be)?  Will we see a subjective test as to what is "child 
looking" enough?

Silliness.  All silliness.

Prediction:  Some manner of law will be on the books (Or perhaps passed, but 
unsigned) before the election attempting to prohibit some form of this 
activity.  Certainly Clinton is not going to veto such a bill before the 
election, which is doubtlessly when the right is going to try to push it 
through.  (Can they streamline it enough to get a vote in time?)

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"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
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com