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

Header Data

From: Jeffrey A Nimmo <janimmo@ionet.net>
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Message Hash: b45a95ad794e08f12e75efb9dd0862a3e1f7186dc5232407f71c1e4063336682
Message ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960605153106.26199C-100000@ion1.ionet.net>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960605162533.7279C-100000@polaris>
UTC Datetime: 1996-06-06 08:28:41 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:28:41 +0800

Raw message

From: Jeffrey A Nimmo <janimmo@ionet.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 16:28:41 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: On the Hill: Child Porn "Morphing"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960605162533.7279C-100000@polaris>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960605153106.26199C-100000@ion1.ionet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:


> > 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 
> convictions.

I would put it to you that being branded a pedophile and kiddie-porn 
operator can have worse implications than jail. For instance, I believe 
that even without a conviction, restraining orders can be placed which 
would prevent you from coming within a certain number of feet of 
children. If it were publically known you would almost certainly lose 
your job. I also imagine it would be hell on your marriage.

All this can result from an arrest, not necessarily a conviction.

Besides, I wouldn't count on the courts to uphold our rights. The Supreme 
Court just upheld civil forfeiture, allowing the cops to sieze your 
property without due (or any as far as I'm concerned) process of law.

> > 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" ?

I believe that like all porn, it's a reasonability issue. If a 
"reasonable" person would believe that the person depicted in the drawing 
or morph to be underage, that it's illegal. I'm not sure, but I'll bet 
Sternlight would have an opinion. Anyone care (dare) to ask?

> > > 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.

That's a good point. Anonymity makes it possible to ask questions that 
would be too embarressing or damaging to ask otherwise. It makes me 
wonder what would have happened if the Cypherpunks had been around in the 
McCarthy era.