1996-06-06 - Re: On the Hill: Child Porn “Morphing”

Header Data

From: Intense <exalt@miworld.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 3f36cc686474950c7c858bda007dbb107eec6acd47adb4058b6fe5e13d4bd60f
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960606012347.7402C-100000@invictor.miworld.net>
Reply To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.960605101735.23845C-100000@wichita.fn.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-06-06 11:37:05 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 19:37:05 +0800

Raw message

From: Intense <exalt@miworld.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 19:37:05 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: On the Hill: Child Porn "Morphing"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.960605101735.23845C-100000@wichita.fn.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960606012347.7402C-100000@invictor.miworld.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Bruce M. wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> people in nude photographs consisted of a usually doctor administered 
> examination (of the picture) where the genitals and other age 
> characteristics of the BODY were taken into account.  I don't think a 
> person's face ever was, or ever should be, a factor.
> > Silliness.  All silliness.
> 	Very true.  Next there will be laws banning provocative pictures of
> adults dressed in child-like garb or acting out child-like sexual 
> fantasies (the infamous "spank me Daddy!).

Urk anything that looks child-like, can be considered child porno.. 
again, it's a scarry thought that they govt. can prohibit someting that 
they deem to be "alike" in whatever way they feal....  :(

               *          <exalt@miworld.net>           *