🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov18.162614.356@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>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.

Look the words up in any dictionary, add them together, and what have you got?

>Is it a nude picture of a child?

Nope.

>A picture where the childs genitals are exposed?

Nope.

>Does there have to be sexual activity depicted?

Yup.  That's what "conduct" means.  Even narrower: *explicit*, not simulated,
not hinted, *explicit*.

See?  Simple.

>>>   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?

I'm not suggesting that it's simple in all cases.  Just that it will be
simple in *many* cases - the 5 or 10 yearolds.

>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).

I'm not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that either of these are.
And it doesn't sound like they are.  But that isn't the point.

>   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.

Who's getting upset?  While the present material is probably not in
contravention of the law, it's clear that real violations are possible,
and quite likely in future.  And that similar illegal postings (say,
credit card numbers) have happened in the past.   My postings are about
*that* eventuality and real legal concerns, not any specific current case.
-- 
Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Psroff 3.0 info: psroff-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca