From: Jeffrey A Nimmo <janimmo@ionet.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 00:44:55 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: On the Hill: Child Porn "Morphing"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960604163805.11159A-100000@polaris>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960605065515.19215C-100000@ion1.ionet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:

> 
> 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've heard of this kind of thing before. Individuals have already been 
sent to jail for doing this, as well as doing and 
distributing kiddie porn drawings. 

I suspect that since it's already illegal on the state level, that 
Congress is looking into making it a federal crime to distribute them 
over state lines via the 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?

It only has to give the impression of being under the age of consent in 
order to be illegal. No real models have to be involved.

> Silliness.  All silliness.

That's debatable. However, in this politically correct environment, I 
wouldn't even give the impression of siding with the pedophiles if I were 
you.

> 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?)

I wouldn't doubt it.

> ---
> 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
> 
>