🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9211180027.36@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.155802.25830@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>>>The government does not have to prove whether it is pornographic or not.
>>>
>>  Indeed not. I think they did prior to 1982. BTW, it is not "pornographic",
>>but "obscene", and that's what we were debating.
>
>In Massachusetts, all depictions of naked children that show the genitals
>are obscene.
>
   I think you are overstating the law. Child porn laws don't (anymore) have
to deal with 'obscene'. A work is illegal because it sexually explaoits
children.
   Obscene refers only to non-child-porn. Pornography is legal. Obscene
works (of whatever description) can be banned from certain localities.

   So you don't refer to obscenity when talking about child porn.

DanZ (drifting further away from news.admin)

-- 
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.