- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Responses to "Leotards and the Law," from The Netly News
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:11:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Responses to "Leotards and the Law," from The Netly News My own reading of the opinion is that Judge Conti doesn't address the most interesting aspect of this law, for instance the case of the South Pacific researcher who wants to create a sexplay animation. To the extent he does, he substitutes assertion from the Senate report for analysis (I agree with Prof. Freedman here). He didn't have to go further, really, since the plaintiffs explicitly said they weren't selling such animations. Conti only explores this idea in a footnote, which reads: "These incidental harms include the depiction of images created within the imagination of the artist. If the images depicted are of children, albeit imaginary ones, and not of actual adults of imaginary people who unequivocally appear to be adults, then the evils associated with child pornography cannot be avoided." This discussion of the imagination of artists strikes me as telling. You see, Judge Conti would like to ban thoughtcrime. -Declan --- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:19:08 -0400 (EDT) From: David Greene <dgreene(a)artswire.org> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Re: FC: "Leotards and the Law," morphed child porn lawsuit, from Netly I read Judge Conti's decision to be more consequential than Professor Freedman does. Three of its features are particularly disturbing to me: 1. Judge Conti held that the law is content-neutral. As the law is targeted directly and very specifically against the content of the depictions, I don't buy his "secondary effects" reasoning (that is, the law is meant to prevent the unavoidable secondary effects of simulated child pornography -- namely, the seduction of children into pedophilic situations -- not the simulated images themselves). The result of Conti's finding is that the law was subject to less demanding scrutiny than it owuld have been had it been found to be content specific. 2. Judge Conti notes that the statute sweeps within its reach "the depiction of images created within the imagination of the artist" that are "of children, albeit imaginary ones." He acknowledges that the illegaliztion of these depictions is an unavoidable incidence of the fight against child pornography. To me then, not only are Photoshop-synthesized images of half-naked children and an anthropology professor's computer-generated movie of the sex play of South Pacific teens be illegal but so would less realisitic depictions such as cartoons or paintings and various types of computer art. Conti tries to bail on this later when he talks about the affirmative defense written into the statute that exempts works not marketed as child pornography or in such a way that exploits its sexual nature as child pornography. However, this affirmative defense is avialable only to works that were produced using an actual adult person. 3. With respect to images of youthful-looking adults, Conti relies heavily on the affirmative defense as curing any constitutional ills the statute might otherwise have had. However, is it really clear when something is marketed "in such a manner as to convey the impression that it is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"? Is the affirmative available to anything that does not call itself KidSeXXXX (or the like)? It still seems vague to me. The opinion seems to criminalize serious works that will use real adults or simulated (computer generated, drawn, etc) children to depict pedophilic situations in order to discuss pedophilia and admit that that is what they contain. Lolita? A Human Sexuality text book? National Geographic? The Supreme Court in the Ferber case and those that followed it was especially concerned with the harm caused to children that participated in the production of child pornography (or identifiable children who were made to appear as though they participated). Whether the mere viewing of child pornography was an equally weighty concern was a question on the outside of the constitutional analysis. Judge Conti's opinion is consequential in that assumes that this is the central issue. --- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:17:44 -0500 From: jc <jch159(a)flash.net> To: declan(a)well.com, fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: "Leotards and the Law," morphed child porn lawsuit, from Netly suppose somebody alters a picture of a child in an erotic pose into a mouse, lets say. Or the lower half is of a mouse but the top half a child? is the person still liable? suppose a dog looks vaguely like its human owner (hey, there are even contests to that effect) and the dog is eating the leg of another human. Would the human most closely resembling the dog be in trouble? thank god there are judges out there like conti who will save us. Stupid prick that he is! --- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:25:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Joe Shea <joeshea(a)netcom.com> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Law limiting child pornography on Internet upheld (fwd) This decision seems, on a preliminary reading. to validate the views of those of us who say that existing laws are sufficient to prosecute child pornography violations that appear on the Internet. Best, Joe Shea Editor-in-Chief The American Reporter joeshea(a)netcom.com http://www.newshare.com:9999 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 05:31:39 -0700 From: NewsHound <NewsHound(a)hound.com> To: newshare(a)rmc1.crocker.com Subject: Law limiting child pornography on Internet upheld NewsHound article from "NEWSPAPERS" hound, score "92." Law limiting child pornography on >>Internet<< upheldBY HOWARD MINTZ Mercury News Staff Writer A San Francisco federal judge has upheld a year-old law aimed at restricting child pornography in cyberspace, rejecting arguments that it violates free-speech rights and chills legitimate art and literature. In a 16-page decision, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti on Tuesday found that the Child Pornography Act of 1996 is constitutional and a valid way to deal with the ``devastating'' effect of computer-generated kiddie porn ``on society and the well-being of children.'' ``Given the nature of the evils that anti-child pornography laws are intended to prevent, the (law) can easily be deemed a content-neutral regulation,'' Conti wrote. The American Civil Liberties Union, the adult entertainment industry and others have challenged the constitutionality of the law, saying it is so broad that it would criminalize everything from Calvin Klein ads to the recent movie rendition of ``Romeo and Juliet.'' [...]

1 0

Re: Sign up on YoungSluts click thru Program
by YoungGirl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sorry to bother you but did you want to sign up on the click thru program if you did as you see below we did not get any info if your browser cant send forms just e-mail the information and we will get you up and running tonite Thank you At 07:46 PM 8/13/97 -0700, you wrote: >Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by > (cypherpunks(a)toad.com) on Wednesday, August 13, 1997 at 19:46:18 >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >site_name: http:// > >first_name: cypherpunks > >last_name: cypherpunks > >mode: add > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >

3 2

CIA/NSA Index
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's a provocative list of forbidden CIA and NSA/CSS records which are not available under the Privacy Act, and which constitute a sort of negative awaiting development: http://jya.com/cia-privacy.htm (82 categories) http://jya.com/nsa-privacy.htm (19 categories) There are similar lists of national privacy proscriptives for most federal agencies available at the source for these. The one for Defense is an elephantine 1.4 MB, with tiny tims for the TLAs.

3 2

Re: Stronghold
by Casey Iverson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:35 PM 10/12/97 -0400,John Young wrote: >Dimitri, Allah bless his carcass, is a learned and deft provocateur. Wrong! Vulii is a KGB loving, decrepid, diseased ridden sack of Russian puss and excrement. His only reason for existence is to spread lies, disinformation, and filth. He shouldn't have the protection of the U.S. Constitution and the toleration of this list.

1 0

Remailer hating Nazis (was Re: The BIG Lie (Jesus Confesses))
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The remailer hating Nazi called Patrick Oonk wrote: >At least I don't hide behind a remailer. There's no cowardice to it, dumbass. Our founding fathers and others wrote things anonymously. I guess they're cowards? If so, then burn in hell, Nazi scum-sucking weasel!

3 2

Attn: Business owners...a COOL web site...FOR FREE
by free＠web.site 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Need a web site? Don't want one of those boring yellow pages? How about a javascript-enhanced web site, complete with animations and a searchable index of your products and services...a COOL web site...FOR FREE? Check out the sample site at www.the-www.com Then download the FREE software today. Again that's http://www.the-www.com Generate new leads...get better results...Get online today!

1 0

Ruling in child porn 1st amendment challenge
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've placed a copy of Judge Conti's ruling in _Free Speech Coalition v. Reno_, the case challenging the Child Pornography Prevention Act on First Amendment grounds, on the web at: <http://www.parrhesia.com/cp.html>. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.

1 0

Text of Clinton's remarks on child safety locks for handguns
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT This week, Smith and Wesson -- the world's largest manufacturer of handguns -- announced that it is forging a partnership with the Master Lock Company to provide a child safety lock with every handgun sold for commercial use. I applaud both of these companies for their efforts to promote gun safety. I particularly want to commend Smith and Wesson for taking an important and responsible step for children's safety. Child safety locks are the right thing to do. In 1994, 185 children were killed by accidental gunshot wounds. That is why my anti-gang and youth violence legislation would require that all federally licensed gun dealers provide such safety devices with every handgun sold. And that is why on March 3rd I ordered all federal agencies to provide child safety locks with the thousands of handguns they issue to federal law enforcement officers. Child safety locks have garnered the wide support of law enforcement, the medical community, many local governments, and now a part of the firearms manufacturing industry. This fall the full Senate considers the anti-juvenile crime legislation. I hope they will include the child safety lock as part of the legislation. -0-

2 1

Re: Remailer hating Nazis
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:22 PM 8/15/97 +0200, The Remailer hating contradictory Nazi Cop wrote: >Some word-twisting asshole wrote: >> Sorry to hear you have such a low opinion of those who use >> anonymous remailers. Is your work on remailers an 'ego' thing, >> or are you a cop? > >I am a cop, but it boosts my ego too. HAHAHAHA!!!! Do you sodomize people with plungers since you're a cop? Kick the crap out of any potsmokers today?? I think your ego's so big it's going to give you back problems when you get older. >> So spam me, big boy. Spam me. > >Let the pros stick to that. Translated: I can't, I'm... I'm... a remailer hating coward!!! (sob sob)

1 0

Microsoft and Java
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

::Boots ------------ http://www.computerworld.com/news/970730javah.html The Paul Maritz interview that article links to has disappeared from Computerworld's site, but a copy is appended. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Formerly at http://www.computerworld.com/news/news_articles/970728moritz.html Microsoft Corp. last week indicated that it would essentially block efforts to make Java a cross-platform development language, stating that it wouldn't ship Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Java Foundation Class Libraries (JFC). Computerworld senior editor Carol Sliwa caught up with Paul Maritz, Microsoft group vice president, at a company reception in Seattle and asked him to explain the software giant's Java stance. CW: There's nothing in the license that requires you to ship those JFCs with Internet Explorer? Maritz: Correct. CW: Is that a contentious issue? Maritz: No. The only reason I brought it up is just that some people like to play hard and fast with the truth, and they like to say, 'Look, these JFC class libraries are going to be a standard because everybody has to ship them. Even Microsoft has to ship them.' And that's not the case. We were very careful when we did the deal to say that we could have the option of shipping them, but we do not have to include them in Windows. CW: Is there some reason you wouldn't want to ship them? Is there something inferior about them? Maritz: No. We don't want to put further bloat on top of the system. We think that basically there isn't a lot of end-user value in them. And Sun's trying to establish them as basically their platform. It's a competing operating system. CW: Do you feel your Application Foundation Class Libraries (AFC) are superior to their JFCs? Maritz: No. AFCs ... make it easier to write apps. But our real strategy is J/Direct. So our answer to JFC is not AFC. It's J/Direct. CW: It sounds like Microsoft is resentful at Sun for taking a dictatorial role. Maritz: The reason we brought it up is Sun likes to blur these two things together. They like to blur the notion of Java the language and Java the class libraries. They'd like to package them all into that concept. We're just saying, 'Hey, there is a difference between the two. Let's be clear on that.' " CW: Do you think you're going to end up fragmenting the language even more? Maritz: Not the language. You're making the mistake. You're falling into their mind-set -- [ignoring] the difference between Java the language from Java the class libraries. CW: But in the end result, a network manager will have to make sure he has both sets of class libraries. Maritz: Let me ask you this question: The fact that you can call Windows [application programming interfaces] from C++, did that splinter C++? It did not. It's the same issue. CW: But if Java's promise is that it'll be a cross-platform language -- Maritz: No. No. Sun's trying to make it that. CW: But say there's an electronic-commerce application that somebody wants to run cross-platform, and that's why they picked Java. And they use the JFCs to write it. Maritz: Good luck. CW: It's not going to run in Internet Explorer. Maritz: It may or may not. But the point is, that's Sun's problem. It's not our problem. CW: Does it end up being companies' problems, too? Are you saying they're foolish for buying into the theory that there can ever be cross-platform language? Maritz: No. We're saying it's no different from any other cross-platform [strategy]. This isn't the first one -- [there was] CBT, Appware, etc. We're just saying that, 'Hey, you should realize that when you're doing that, you're dependent upon Sun to get it to work.' CW: But if you bought into the JFCs, then you wouldn't be in this particular case. If you shipped JFCs, you'd help foster the idea of cross-platform. Maritz: And I don't want to ship another operating system on top of our operating system and burden every copy of Windows with all of that extra weight. CW: Do you agree that it makes developers have to make choices and it makes them have to do more work and it makes companies have to install both sets of classes? So in the end, it makes life difficult for everyone, doesn't it? Maritz: But we think that that's reality, because you either get this thing to become a heavyweight thing, in which case it's going to perform badly. Or you have to make it something very small. So we're not trying to be parties to perpetuating the myth.

1 0