Making Imaginary Sex Illegal
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/5153.html Making Imaginary Sex Illegal by Ashley Craddock 12:05pm 14.Jul.97.PDT Is there such a thing as child porn which doesn't involve children? Logic would say no, but adherence to the rules of reason has never been a hallmark of the United States Congress, particularly when it comes to hot-button issues like child protection. So maybe it shouldn't be surprising that Congress has made it a criminal offense to depict non-obscene, sexually explicit material involving anyone who "appears to be" a minor. Maybe it shouldn't be surprising that it made it a criminal offense to advertise materials in any way that "conveys the impression" that minors will be sexually depicted. But what about the fact that Congress explicitly designed the law to make computer-simulated child porn illegal? "Besides the completely unconstitutional prohibition on using young adult actors, we're basically talking about criminalizing pseudo-pornography," says William Bennett Turner, a San Francisco First Amendment specialist. "I laughed when I first read that Congress was trying to make imaginary sex illegal. I never thought the law would pass." But in a climate in which the US president can seriously tout the myth that fashion photography kicked off a heroin craze among teenagers jonesing to jump on the fastest, hippest bandwagon, the Child Pornography Protection Act was a sure shot. And at the end of 1996, the law quietly made it a felony to engineer, sell, or even posses computer-simulated images of smutty kids, or sexually explicit depictions of real baby-faced adults. The rationale behind the Child Porn Act, introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), is by and large unoriginal: Pedophiles can use child pornography - or anything that looks like child porn - to seduce kids. Moreover, child porn, whether it depicts real kids, childlike adults, or computer simulations of kids, makes pedophiles a little too hot and bothered for society's good. But the age of morphing added a new twist to the old arguments. When perverts can whip up sexual turn-ons from composites of photographs of children or even from computer graphics programs, argued supporters, a new child-porn definition is crucial. Whether those computer-age fears have any more basis in reality than your average monster-in-the-closet didn't seem to matter one whit to Congress. Testimony that the Department of Justice had "not come across any pedophiles who have actually used the morphing technology" didn't slow the bill's passage. Neither did testimony by another witness, Jeffrey Dupilka of the US Postal Service, who voiced his official opinion that pedophiles "probably" knew about morphing technologies, and were "most likely" using them, but that he didn't "know for sure." No more concrete evidence made its way into Congress before the bill passed. Now, anyone in possession of child pornography could face up to five years in prison - more if they're repeat offenders. Producers and distributors could face up to 30 years in jail for repeat offenses. Alarmed by the Child Porn Act's ramifications for films that cast young actors as sexually active kids (before your favorite porn flick, think Lolita or Romeo and Juliet) the adult entertainment industry responded almost immediately. In January, the Free Speech Coalition filed a brief against Attorney General Janet Reno, contending that the government had far overstepped the First Amendment. The acting judge decided against a trial. Both parties, he announced, could file briefs in support of their position. So on Friday, the parties filed their arguments in the United States District Court in San Francisco. As the case has evolved, the government has moved toward the stance that it didn't really mean to outlaw sexually explicit images of young adults who might look like kids. What it meant to do was protect the world from explicit kiddie morphs. It's a ridiculous position, argues Turner. So along with the American Civil Liberties Union, last week he filed an amicus brief in support of a Free Speech Coalition's suit. "There is a real difference between touching children sexually and touching computer keys to create images: the former is wrong in itself and within the power of government to prohibit; but there is nothing inherently wrongful about using either a computer or adults to create sexually explicit images," the document contends. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments from both sides 8 August.
Alan Olsen <root@nwdtc.com> writes:
Making Imaginary Sex Illegal
by Ashley Craddock 12:05pm 14.Jul.97.PDT Is there such a thing as child porn which doesn't involve children? Logic would say no, but adherence to the rules of reason has never been a hallmark of the United States Congress, particularly when it comes to hot-button issues like child protection.
This has zero crypto-relevance, so I'll rant about the movies instead. Some folks on this list may have heard of the book _Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, and/or seen the movie (directed I think by Stanley Kubrik circa 1965). A couple of years ago someone remade the movie using a 14-year-old actress. Naturally, there was no sex. Nevertheless every U.S. ditributor refused to distribute the movie expressing the fear of being charged with child pornography. And of course you heard that _The Tin Drummer_, the German movie that won the Oscar a couple of years ago, was seized in Oklahoma as being child porn. Has anyone _not_ see _The Bridge over the River Kwai_? Did you know that the sequel, _The Return to the River Kwai_, fairly successful in most countries outside the U.S., was never released in the U.S. (in theaters or on tape), perhaps because Sony owns the rights in the U.S. and found the movie offensive to the Japs? (Wait a minute, that's not child porn...) ObHack: Isn't child porn legal in some European countries? How about setting up a (free) Web site someplace like Denmark with pictures that are illegal in the U.S. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/5153.html
Making Imaginary Sex Illegal
by Ashley Craddock
So maybe it shouldn't be surprising that Congress has made it a criminal offense to depict non-obscene, sexually explicit material involving anyone who "appears to be" a minor. Maybe it shouldn't be surprising that it made it a criminal offense to advertise materials in any way that "conveys the impression" that minors will be sexually depicted.
But what about the fact that Congress explicitly designed the law to make computer-simulated child porn illegal?
If "computer-simulated" images are legal, how can you tell that it is computer simulated? Everyone will then claim to be a talented artist, or use reverse aging algorithms on adult porn photos, or just use enough obvious features on a real picture to show computer alteration. Or, simply have a CG artist render the live scene? Which category would that be? JPEG is a lossy compression technique - would that alteration to a photograph be considered "computer simulation".
As the case has evolved, the government has moved toward the stance that it didn't really mean to outlaw sexually explicit images of young adults who might look like kids. What it meant to do was protect the world from explicit kiddie morphs.
If anyone watched the original hearings, this is what they were discussing as the problem with the original definition. I forget the specific legalese, but if one face was pasted on a different body, for some reason it ceased to fall within the old definition, making it very easy to create "legal" child-pornography. Of course courts regularly ignore legislative intent. Congress is notoriously bad at coming up with good legal definitions, and I was bothered that they didn't simply include "computer-altered" images in the existing definition instead of a complete redifinition of "anything that appears to be". I hope the existing law is overturned as being too broad so that the narrower definition can be passed. But to return to the cypher aspect, what about altering existing images so that they are unidentifiable as to whether they are from real acts or truly the products of an imagination. Will we now need someone from the government to certify the kiddie porn isn't real? --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
On Tue, Jul 15, 1997 at 12:25:55PM -0400, Unprivileged user wrote:
But to return to the cypher aspect, what about altering existing images so that they are unidentifiable as to whether they are from real acts or truly the products of an imagination. Will we now need someone from the government to certify the kiddie porn isn't real?
Yes, that's the logical next step -- Government Approved Porn (GAP). Perhaps we could get Senator Hatch to sponsor a bill? The constitutional implications are staggering. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:
Yes, that's the logical next step -- Government Approved Porn (GAP). Perhaps we could get Senator Hatch to sponsor a bill?
The constitutional implications are staggering.
"Welcome to the future. Here is your free porn." alano@teleport.com | "Those who are without history are doomed to retype it."
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 1997 at 12:25:55PM -0400, Unprivileged user wrote:
But to return to the cypher aspect, what about altering existing images so that they are unidentifiable as to whether they are from real acts or truly the products of an imagination. Will we now need someone from the government to certify the kiddie porn isn't real?
Yes, that's the logical next step -- Government Approved Porn (GAP). Perhaps we could get Senator Hatch to sponsor a bill?
The constitutional implications are staggering.
Actually, Government Approved Kiddieporn, or GAK. Isn't Hatch already for GAK? --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
Yes, that's the logical next step -- Government Approved Porn (GAP). Perhaps we could get Senator Hatch to sponsor a bill?
We have government approved gambling with terrible odds already. This sounds like the next logical step.
There's government-approved porn already; you can get it from your Postal Inspector by letting him know you're a suspect\\\\\\\\\ interested in that sort of thing. The odds of you getting arrested for it instead of the Postal Inspector are also terrible... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)
At 12:25 PM -0400 7/15/97, Unprivileged user wrote:
http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/5153.html
Making Imaginary Sex Illegal
by Ashley Craddock
So maybe it shouldn't be surprising that Congress has made it a criminal offense to depict non-obscene, sexually explicit material involving anyone who "appears to be" a minor. Maybe it shouldn't be surprising that it made it a criminal offense to advertise materials in any way that "conveys the impression" that minors will be sexually depicted.
But what about the fact that Congress explicitly designed the law to make computer-simulated child porn illegal?
If "computer-simulated" images are legal, how can you tell that it is computer simulated? Everyone will then claim to be a talented artist, or use reverse aging algorithms on adult porn photos, or just use enough obvious features on a real picture to show computer alteration. Or, simply have a CG artist render the live scene? Which category would that be? JPEG is a lossy compression technique - would that alteration to a photograph be considered "computer simulation".
Exactly. Like crypto, technology is making moot these Nanny laws, but the legislators don't get it. I completely reject Congress' and the SC's different treatment of porn and graphic violence in the media. Either both or neither should be banned. The real issue is: Thought Crime. Should society have the right to control information content which cannot be shown to directly endanger or harm specific parties? I and many libertarians would say HELL NO. --Steve PGP encrypted mail PREFERRED (See MIT/BAL servers for my PK) PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear (N7ZEZ) | Internet: azur@netcom.com 7075 West Gowan Road | Voice: 1-702-658-2654 Suite 2148 | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; The courage to change the things I can; The weapons that make the difference; And the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people that got in my way;-) "Surveilence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus, potential entertainment." --G. Beato "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." -- Dr. Robert Silensky
At 11:54 AM -0700 7/15/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 1997 at 12:25:55PM -0400, Unprivileged user wrote:
But to return to the cypher aspect, what about altering existing images so that they are unidentifiable as to whether they are from real acts or truly the products of an imagination. Will we now need someone from the government to certify the kiddie porn isn't real?
Yes, that's the logical next step -- Government Approved Porn (GAP). Perhaps we could get Senator Hatch to sponsor a bill?
We have government approved gambling with terrible odds already. This sounds like the next logical step. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
At 9:25 AM -0700 7/15/97, Unprivileged user wrote:
If "computer-simulated" images are legal, how can you tell that it is computer simulated?
Well, for a start, you can save evidence of the steps you took in making the images. If you are combining images (adult actors for the X stuff, and children for the faces etc.) then save the original images and some of the rejected intermediate images. If you are drawing from scratch (e.g. using paint and brush), save the sketches, and perhaps also photos of the intermediate stages of the final image. Given a rational legal system (Yea, I know), these steps should give a complete defense against the charge that you abused children in making the images. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
participants (9)
-
Alan -
Alan Olsen -
Bill Frantz -
Bill Stewart -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Kent Crispin -
Michael Stutz -
Steve Schear -
Unprivileged user