From: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 05:35:33 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
Message-ID: <199609111822.LAA15265@netcom7.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At  8:48 PM 9/10/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
>> Q: Is a drawing of a child engaging in a sexual act an illegal item?
>
>Under the original Hatch bill, yes. Certainly under the revised one. Of 
>course, Hatch's proposal goes even farther. There's no "sex act" requirement.
>Judy Krug from the ALA testified about this, opposing Bruce Taylor.
>
>> Q: Is an image of Raquel Welch morphed to make her look like a 15-year-old
>> illegal?
>
>Even under the original Hatch bill, yes.

It seems to me that the logic of these answers would make the movie,
"Carried Away" illegal.  According to a Boston Globe review (reprinted in
the local rag), "... his character cheats on his longtime girlfriend with a
new student who's only 17, ..."  Depending on how this is depicted in the
movie (Rated R), it seems to me that this could go over Hatch's line. 
(BTW, the review rates the movie 3 stars out of a possible 4.)


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | "Lone Star" - My personal  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     |  choice for best movie of  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com |  1996                      | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA