🚀 go-pugleaf

..or in the eye of the "community standards" whatever that means.

Couldn't this elusive set of standards lead lead to real charges?  I think
that was the ruling on *I am curious, yellow* (a/k/a the *I know
it when I see it* doctrine.
>
> On Tue, 11 May 1993 14:29:48 -0400 betsy kurzinger said:
> >The postman noticed that it just so happened that the little girls underware
> >was showing.  You guessed it, they got hauled into court on child pornography
> >charges, which were later thrown out of court but this couple had to endure
>
>   Interesting...hadn't heard about that one...though as a librarian I try
> to keep up on censorship issues...and I have done research on porn, too...
> and regularly lecture to a number of classes.  I'll leave it to my
> cross-state buddy to do the research, but I had thought the mail handlers
> were supposed to keep stuff confidential, with almost the same vigilance
> as a priest or shrink.  Maybe not....
>
>   Of course for those who want them I'll be glad to send a card of a bunch
> of females in VERY small bikinis and the like...advertising cards for
> an outfit that sells videos of the Xrated type...I have a LOT of these
> cards and send them regularly to entertain my college-age nephews and such.
>
>    And I have received cards in the mail of full frontal nudity, of both
> males and females.  So how the underwear is 'kiddy porn' I'll be darned
> if I know...but porn, like beauty, must be in the eye of the beholder.
>
>   dan
>


--
Merlin Mann, (merlin@freenet.scri.fsu.edu)
Tallahassee, Florida