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

Header Data

From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
To: Jeffrey A Nimmo <janimmo@ionet.net>
Message Hash: 869cf53e2374a7d15d445f2fb1bad3714c040e6ee7d6c85adf6f65767609c370
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960605162533.7279C-100000@polaris>
Reply To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960605065515.19215C-100000@ion1.ionet.net>
UTC Datetime: 1996-06-06 08:05:11 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:05:11 +0800

Raw message

From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:05:11 +0800
To: Jeffrey A Nimmo <janimmo@ionet.net>
Subject: Re: On the Hill: Child Porn "Morphing"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960605065515.19215C-100000@ion1.ionet.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960605162533.7279C-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Jeffrey A Nimmo 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.
> > 
> > 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 know indirectly of two state supreme courts that have overturned such 

> 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.

See above.
As to federal crime, I believe so.

> > 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.

Ok, what is "the impression of being under the age of consent" ?

> > 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.

That's what nyms are for.

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