🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4015@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.162614.356@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
[still argueing about porn and child-porn. I don't think we have much 
disagreement, but let's give it another go-around]

>
>>Does there have to be sexual activity depicted?
>
>Yup.  That's what "conduct" means.  Even narrower: *explicit*, not simulated,
>not hinted, *explicit*.
>
>See?  Simple.
>
    I don't think this is correct. By sexual activity, I mean a child or
child plus another person actually doing something sexual. Like having sex
or oral sex, or the like.

   But I think it is also illegal if a child is posed in a way that suggests
sex to a reasonable person. So a nude standing child shouldn't be porn, but
a child posed with legs spread in a typical 'sex' pose should be. It is this
part that causes the difficulty.

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.