From: Intense <exalt@miworld.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 19:57:15 +0800
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.3.91.960606012308.7402B-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:
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> 	As far as I was aware, the manner of currently judging the age of 
> 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!).
> 
> 
>                     Bruce M. * brucem@feist.com
>         ~---------------------------------------------------~
>         "Knowledge enormous makes a god of me." -- John Keats
> 
> 
>