From: "Bruce M." <brucem@wichita.fn.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 10:49:42 +0800
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: On the Hill: Child Porn "Morphing"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960604163805.11159A-100000@polaris>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.91.960605101735.23845C-100000@wichita.fn.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.
> 
> 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