John, my ill-mannered, surly, and lovable friend, you may have read it, but you sure didn't understand it. My point, such as it is, is that the Ohio case is a natural expansion and mild evolution of "child porn" laws in the U.S. If y'all are going to get upset about the Ohio statute and prosecution, then you should be looking critically at state and federal obscenity laws and child porn laws as well. John, to his credit, seems to be doing that. -Declan On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 12:22:41PM -0700, John Young wrote:
Declan, you condescending prig, I did read your message and was trying to askance your clubfingeredness about "possession," which isn't as monolithic as you vaunt and which smacked overmuch of LEAs' agressive erasure of distinctions.
Hector me not, for the failure to look behind heavy-handed law enforcement, dementia, concerning kiddie porn can be interpreted as complicity, or worse, distancing from the obligation to relook, rethink, and re-examine one's own proclivities to avoid the worst dispute in the country.
The pathology of kiddie porn is probably the vilest plague upon the land, and that is due to bravehearts running scared of the infected nuts who may, if they have their way, beat out abortion and guns and vile government as pointless no-brainers.
Come back, Smokey, tell me something new about what's wrong with "possession" in this particular case, not what is in the read the fucking manual before I waste my time wasting mine.
Coda:
I'm trying a new pseudo-comprehensible writing style, so fuck off. No vanity sig just yet but it will come.