From fight-censorship archives... -Declan
// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com // ADDITIONAL ANSWER: Because "child pornography" as defined in the governing Supreme Court case (Ferber) sweeps far more broadly than "obscenity" ever did (to the point that even scholars who have supported controls on the latter attacked what the Supreme Court did with the former). For example, although the issues were not resolved, the case revealed that some members of the Supreme Court believe that medical doctors, anthropologists, journalists covering wars or working for the National Geographic, or legislators working on new censorship legislation might all be constitutionally prosecuted for possessing any photographic images of naked children. Therefore, we need to be extremely careful about any casual acceptance of the proposition that "Of course, child pornography can be banned." What we actually mean is, "Of course, one can outlaw the use of children in obscene performances." Without wanting to sound too legalistic about all this, if we don't stay alert we are going to find that a significant part of the suppression work sought to be done by "indecency" can be done by "child pornography." ******* Professor Eric M. Freedman Hofstra University School of Law Hempstead, N.Y. 11550 Tel. (516)-463-5167 Fax (516)-560-7676 LAWEMF@Vaxc.Hofstra.edu ********