Re: WAS_tem (fwd)
Incoming from Rev. Ben:
On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, James A. Donald wrote:
If you draw a picture using paintbrush of an underage person engaging in sexual conduct, you are in violation of this proposed legislation.
Doesn't that directly contradict the stated purpose of existing child
[snip]
Do the lawyers on the list want to pipe up?
On cypherpunks?!? Whatever for? I imagine there's already a rousing discussion going on about this somewhere in AOL. Take it there. -- "Remember, obsolescence (Win95) isn't an accident; it's an art form!" keelings@wu1.wl.aecl.ca s. keeling, aecl - whiteshell labs
On Sat, 16 Sep 1995, S. Keeling wrote:
Incoming from Rev. Ben:
On Thu, 14 Sep 1995, James A. Donald wrote:
If you draw a picture using paintbrush of an underage person engaging in sexual conduct, you are in violation of this proposed legislation.
Doesn't that directly contradict the stated purpose of existing child
[snip]
Do the lawyers on the list want to pipe up?
The current child pornography laws are entirely misguided and poorly written.
--
"Remember, obsolescence (Win95) isn't an accident; it's an art form!" keelings@wu1.wl.aecl.ca s. keeling, aecl - whiteshell labs
--- "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
participants (2)
-
Black Unicorn -
keelings＠wu1.wl.aecl.ca