[118413] in Cypherpunks
Re: "Women without veils"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Declan McCullagh)
Mon Sep 27 01:45:20 1999
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 23:24:30 -0600
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>, cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
In-Reply-To: <v03130306b4142d51083b@[207.111.242.5]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <19990927052443.BACX29473@alaptop.hotwired.com>
Reply-To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
At 13:15 9/26/1999 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but in these United States cannot one be convicted
>on a "pedophilia" charge for having sex with, or pictures of, or cartoons
>about, a person who is under the legal age of consent? Usually 18, though
>some states apparently set it at 16 or thereabout.
Actually it's federal law, so there's one uniform standard, which I recall
defines a minor as <18. Nothing to do with the age of consent (which in
some states I think might be 14). So you 17 year old cpunx can screw your
17-year old girlfriend, if state law allows, but be careful about what
photos you take of her.
Pre 1996, it was a federal felony to POSSESS (even in a locked safe in your
basement) images that featured "lascivious" exhibition of the genitals of a
17-year old or younger person. Courts have interpreted this to include a
videotape of clothed girls dancing around in tight leotards. (Knox case)
Post 1996, Hatch and Feinstein expanded the law to cover lascivious images
that APPEAR to be minors. Said it was too hard for feds to prosecute
before. This covers young-looking 18 year olds and images morphed in
photoshop where no minors were ever involved.
More:
http://www.pathfinder.com/time/digital/daily/0,2822,12408,00.html
-Declan
