From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 07:16:25 +0800
To: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Subject: Re: Fed appellate judge remarks re anonymity, free speech on the net
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960913185159.00733374@pop.ricochet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:23 AM 9/13/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
>> At 05:40 PM 9/12/96 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
>> ...
>> >Kozinski also suggested that computer-generated or morphed images of
>> >children involved in sexual acts may not be protected under the Constitution
>> >because of ongoing trauma to the child,
>> 
>> Which child?  Does he understand what "computer-generated" means?
>> 
>
>Yes, he does, I think.  But I think "protected" above should read 
>"prohibited."  [Note to Greg: could that be a typo?]  The key kiddie 
>porn/1st amendment case (whose name escapes 
>me for the moment) offered two reasons why kiddie porn could be regulated 
>in the face of the first amendment.  One reason was the "on-going trauma to 
>the child [victim]."In a morphed image, they is not (or at least may not be) 
>an actual child victim.  Thus the "continuing trauma" rationale for 
>regulation does not exist in that case. 

This is what the article says:

"Another freedom-of-speech-related concern may be that while
computer-generated or 'morphed' Internet images of consenting adults in
sexual acts may find constitutional protections, the same may not hold if
such images use the likeness of a child because of ongoing trauma to the
child, Kozinski says." 

The only way this makes sense to me is that a child might be horrified to
find their face pasted onto the body of a 20-year old involved in sexual
activity. But this doesn't seem like a problem for criminal law to solve, it
seems like a tort law problem, and I'm still inclined to think that the
First amendment protects speech which upsets or horrifies someone.

The other rationale I see is the "child porn makes susceptible people go
molest children" argument. (And the consequently molested child would then
endure ongoing trauma.) The only difference I see between this argument and
the argument (which has been rejected in U.S. courts, as far as I know) that
adult porn makes susceptible people hurt women is the changing focus from
"woman" to "child". But I don't see a big difference between ongoing trauma
in adults and ongoing trauma in children, such that one merits special
restrictions on otherwise protected speech and one does not. But maybe
that's why I'm studying for the bar and Alex Kozinski is on the 9th circuit. :)

 
--
Greg Broiles                |  "We pretend to be their friends,
gbroiles@netbox.com         |   but they fuck with our heads."
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |
                            |