From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:42:30 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: "Morphed" child porn case ruling text (FSC v. Reno)
In-Reply-To: <v03007805b019257a3971@[168.161.105.191]>
Message-ID: <v03102804b0195dd64ec5@[10.0.2.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I fail to see the First Amendment basis differences between rulings
supporting the ban on child pornography and rulings upholding the
dessemination of bomb making.

In the case of child porn the laws maintain that the mere presence of such
materials can serve as a catalyst to pervs who might use the materials to
self-stimulate into a frezy leading to a rape or entice young'ins to
voluntarily engage in proscribed activities.  Healthy functioning adults,
however, should be able to safely view such materials, and if they have an
academic (though not necessarily affilaited with an institution for higher
education) interest use them to understand the motivations and psychology
of the pervs.

In the case of bomb or weapons of mass destruction information,
pyrotechnics or terrorists might use them to build devices to kill or
injure many citizens (e.g., McVeigh), yet these materials are
consititutionally protected.

This is, to my mind, an obvious double standard with no rational
explanation other than interpretation of the consitution to match
prevailing public sentement. I suggest taht jurists who cannot rationally
an dispassionately rule on such matters be immediately removed from office.

--Steve