From: nobody@cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 04:50:06 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
Message-ID: <199609121707.KAA12179@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Rick Smith wrote:

> : ...the "little girls in leotards" case was only a few years ago, etc.)
> 
> Don't know about that one. Is it illegal for little girls to be
> photographed in leotards now? "Nutcracker" is X rated? Move over,
> Bambi.

   But this proves precisely Tim's original point, that child
pornography is a thoughtcrime.

   Here's a working definition of child pornography at the end of the
millenium: it's a picture of a child, in the hands of a pedophile.
Pictures of girls in leotarfds are not child pornography per se, but
if you think evil thoughts while watching them, then they become child
pornography. What got Stephen Knox in trouble was leaving so much
evidence that he was thinking those evil thoughts.