🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4005@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>
>>   In the strict legal sense, you don't know anything is child-porn until it
>>has been ruled as such. The same goes for obscenity.
>
[some text deleted]
>
> In those cases, the test is simple - whether
>it meets the above definition:  pictures produced using minors engaged
>in sexually explicit conduct.  Simple.
>
>*Not* whether:
>	- it had artistic merit
>	- it was within community standards
>	- it was unreasonable censorship - remember the issue is
>	  child abuse, *not* pornography.
>	- viewing the pictures could cause harm to society
>
  I for one have never been confused about his.
  But I challenge the word "simple".  What does the phrase "sexually explicit
conduct" mean? I don't think it has been defined. Is it a nude picture of
a child? A picture where the childs genitals are exposed? Does there have to
be sexual activity depicted?

>>   So a sysadmin doesn't "know" that anything in a.b.p.e is illegal.
>
>On the contrary, given the above legal definition, a SA will usually
>have no trouble knowing whether a specific picture is illegal.  If,
>for example, you see a picture going by that shows a minor having
>sex with anyone or anything, it is illegal, period.  Simple.
>
   How do you know it is a minor? It may be easy if it is a 5 year old, but 
how do you distinguish (unambiguosly) between a 17 year old and an 18 year old?
Do you read a.b.p.e?  What pictures (specifically) do you suggest are child
porn? Is it ruko.gif or kapsters.gif? (the two that were talked about most).

   We all want to do what we can to stop child abuse. But it doesn't do any
good to get real upset by a situation that isn't happening.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.