[108002] in Cypherpunks
Re: children, porn, automata
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mgraffam@idsi.net)
Sun Jan 31 20:21:57 1999
From: mgraffam@idsi.net
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 20:05:53 -0500 (EST)
To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <199902010014.BAA23021@replay.com>
Reply-To: mgraffam@idsi.net
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Anonymous wrote:
> >I agree that this case is yet another chip out of our liberty, but to be
> >honest, it is not easy for many people to see this, and I can't
> >particularly blame them.
> >
> >Having an image of some something should not be illegal. It should be (and
> >is) illegal to _make_ child porn, but not illegal to own it. Making it
>
> What if there are *no* children involved? Just an artist and a drawing
> tablet?
>
> Then no one is hurt. So there is no crime.
Absolutably. I actually got into a debate regarding this several months
ago with a co-worker, and I argued this same point.
> Obviously, sexual interest about prepubescents is ill. But equating
> *fictional* synthetic images, or text with actual violence against people is
> sicker.
Indeed.
I don't know why this comes to mind now, but ..
I heard of a case in which a 13 year old boy was found trading nude
images of 12-15 year old girls on the net. This brings up an interesting
facet to child porn laws, I think. If memory serves, prosecutors were
entertaining the idea of charging the kid with some rather serious
crimes..
> But my point was about real (ie, evidence of an
> actual assault) vs. fictional and the conceptual difficulty this poses
> for legislators in Maine.
This is indeed a very large difficulty, and unfortunately it deals with an
issue that many people are not capable of discussing rationally.
This is where the real danger is, IMO.
There are obvious philosophical problems with restricting images in
general (as outlined above, and in previous messages), much less when
there is no victim!
I suspect that this side of the debate will become more obvious as
computer graphics and rendering ability become more powerful on home
PC's.
When photorealistic images can be produced without requiring children
even being in the building, much less being victimized, this debate
will get even harder.
> Ever since the caves of france, we have been free to depict what we will,
> with whatever tools we find, on whatever surfaces we like.
>
> Bits are bits. First they restrict 2-D bits, then 1-D bits, to hell with
> that pesky constitution.
The easy part, of course, is upholding the constitution when it is for
things we like.. for example, free political debate or free artistic
expression. The hard part is being consistent and protecting the fringes;
esp. when we don't like the words we hear, or the images we see.
Really, the constitution means nothing Joe America's everyday life
anyhow.. mainstream/popular speech will always be protected, if by nothing
but the number of the majority. It's the minority groups and fringe-types
that get protected by the constitution, the mainline types don't need
that protection... perhaps that is why they are so quick to do away with
the constitution in the first place.
Michael J. Graffam (mgraffam@idsi.net)
"..subordination of one sex to the other is wrong in itself, and now
one of the chief hindrances to human improvement.." John Stuart Mill
"The Subjection of Women"
