From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 14:21:01 +0800
To: se7en <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Response to "My War"
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.970609220733.12873a-100000@kizmiaz.dis.org>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970609231011.007482c4@netcom13.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 10:07 PM 6/9/97 -0700, se7en wrote:
>As far as freedom of speech goes, sorry guys, it does not cover activities 
>which violate the rights of others. Someone does not have the right to fuck 
>a four-year-old girl in the ass, take pictures of it, and then scan it and 
>upload it to the Internet.

Amen to the first part of the sentence. [Are there really pictures  like
that available? I too have investigated USENET to determine out just how
much truth there was to the claim of abundant child pornography available
on the Net and found only the type of pictures a casual observer could take
on any given Summer day at a Mediterranean beach. Oh, and 30+ year old
women in baby doll dresses. Twisted, but hardly child porn. Maybe child
porn is available on the net. But if I can't find it, it hardly is abundant.]

As to the last part of the sentence, who' rights, exactly, were violated
when a pre-existing picture was scanned and posted? I assume you could say
that the child's rights were violated since it didn't sign a release. What
if its legal guardian agreed to the posting of the immage? I concur that a
child's legal guardian can not validly agree to the child being subjected
to the deranged treatment you describe, but I fail to see how the mere act
of scanning and posting the pictures is any different than scanning and
posting any other picture. Assuming the person scanning and posting is not
involved in the production of the pictures.

Thanks,

--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

  Put a stake through the heart of DES! Join the quest at
  http://www.frii.com/~rcv/deschall.htm