From: Rick Smith <smith@sctc.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 09:31:24 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
Message-ID: <199609112256.RAA09825@shade.sctc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Tim wrote:

: Declan answers in the affirmative that, yes, nearly all of the examples I
: cited are indeed crimes. ....
: As I well knew, which is why I presented them. (The Jock Sturges case was
: in SF,  ...

I've read in several places that the Jock Sturges case was thrown out
of court by the judge. Nobody has dragged me away in shackles for
owning "Radiant Images."  Stores selling photo books often carry his
work, and it is rarely covered with opaque plastic.

So it may be nudity that set the gendarmes (sp?) in motion, but that's
evidently not what's really illegal. I wonder what would happen if an
"adult magazine" were to reproduce Sturges' work. The court case might
be interesting...

Now apply that to the Web. Imagine there's a Sturges site, and a porn
site links to it. Does that make the Sturges material "child porn?"
If so, is the porn site illegal or the Sturges site? I suspect the
prosecutors will come down on both and let the courts sort it out.
Prior restraint, eh?

: ...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.

Personally, I think the political posturing theory captures the
essence of the legislative climate.

Rick.