On 8 Sep 2001, at 11:53, measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 03:31:11AM -0500, measl@mfn.org wrote:
(In fact, since 1996 and the "morphed child porn" law in effect, Photoshop- created fantasies have been illegal to possess, and people have been convicted under that law, and their convictions (mostly) upheld.)
My point was that this is a natural outgrowth of existing child porn and obscenity laws,
An outgrowth would imply that it is along a continuum that has the same basic "footing". All of your above examples, from the traditional "kiddie porn" to the Feinswine dirty pixel laws deal with visual imagery of the photographic "kind". What we have here is distinctly different: no pictures of *any* kind, real or constructed, *unless*, we are no prosecuting the imagery that we are assuming is present in the mind of the author. He is using *words*, not *imagery*.
And why do you think that is significant? Once morphed pictures can be considered child pornography, the "real victim" argument no longer applies. Why should text be considered fundamentally different from drawn pictures? George