Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> writes:
I'd like to see exactly how they word the proposed prohibitons. What constitutes "child" when the face painted on is pure artistry? Will we see a simple and strict prohibition over modifiying sexually explicit pictures to make them appear to be of younger models (whatever their apparent age may be)? Will we see a subjective test as to what is "child looking" enough?
Silliness. All silliness.
Indeed. One should note that some states already have legislation which contains the magic phrase "appears to be" in the specification of legal ages. The testimony of a willing pediatrician is all that is necessary to convert some random fuzzy GIF into a lengthy prison term. Morphing technology is a new approach to creating what appear to be sexual depictions of children, but there have also been prosecutions based on more traditional technology, like sissors and paste. Personally, I don't think it should be possible to commit a crime in the privacy of ones home using only sissors, Scotch Tape, an old Playboy, and a JC Penny Catalog. Those familiar with "The Varieties of Religious Experience" will recall something called "The Pious Imagination", which results in every vaguely anthropomorphic smudge being seen as the face of Christ. I suspect the Child Sex Hysterics are afflicted with a similar trait, which similarly transforms image ambiguity into pre-teen orgies.
Prediction: Some manner of law will be on the books (Or perhaps passed, but unsigned) before the election attempting to prohibit some form of this activity. Certainly Clinton is not going to veto such a bill before the election, which is doubtlessly when the right is going to try to push it through. (Can they streamline it enough to get a vote in time?)
Wasn't Orin Hatch the big proponent of "synthetic child porn" legislation? I remember him harping on the subject a while back. Is he behind this new push?