🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4005@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:

   the test is simple - whether it meets the above definition:
   pictures produced using minors engaged in sexually explicit
   conduct.

   given the above legal definition, a SA will usually have no trouble
   knowing whether a specific picture is illegal.

A picture of a vase might be produced by two minors engaged in
sexually explicit conduct.  How would we ever know?  :) :)

Thanks for (hopefully) making it clear that the issue is child abuse.
On to serious matters.

   If you saw, say, a picture containing 6 year old having sex with an
   adult: not only is the material itself illegal, but receiving (and I
   presume transmitting) such material after you've been warned
   is also a crime that *you* are committing:

	 "[The law] requires only knowing receipt of visual depictions
	 produced by using minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Knowing that sometimes people post child porn to a.s.p.e is completely
different from knowing that a picture has actually been posted.  I
never knowingly receive child porn, even if I carried a.s.p.e.  The
situation is more like getting it in the mail unsolicited and
unwanted.  Of course I am responsible for action if I notice it or if
it is brought to my attention, but not because somebody posted it.
The poster is responsible for that act.
-- 
Ed McGuire                   1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/       Dallas, Texas 75234
 Member of Technical Staff   214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc.           <ed@intellection.com>