Here are some of my responses on another list... --Declan ********** Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:46:47 -0400 To: "Vangelis" <vangelis@qnis.net> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> Subject: How "child porn" laws ban pix of girls in leotards At 11:54 -0700 6/9/97, Vangelis wrote:

None of this out-of-control angry mob shit, alright? THINK. If it's too hard a task to go after ONLY those genuinely responsible and you'd rather go after their friends, family, co-workers, customers, or anyone else you've rationalized as somehow indirectly encouraging the activity w/o actually participating, then you've got no business playing vigilante - you've become just another wreckless crusader *blinded* by his own self-righteous outrage. Christianity, the Nazi Party, and Prohibition, and McCarthyism (just to name a few) have already given us enough of those.

This is well said. Read that paragraph again. The true enemy here is *NOT* the pervs trading child porn. It's the censorhappy wackos who want to censor others. The main reason folks seem to be in a lather about the "threat" of child porn is that it might ruin the Net for everyone. That is, it gives Congress an excuse to censor it and bring it under ever-tightening controls. But isn't it clear that the true enemy is the censor? Stamp out child porn and then Congress will use Nazi sites, or regular porn sites, or sites that collect personal information as an excuse and justification for censorship. That's why you should attack the censors (and the real child molestors), not those trading dirty JPEGs. Also, I see a lot of uninformed rants on this list about "we must uphold child porn laws." Few people seem to realize that the long-standing Federal child porn law outlawed *pictures of dancing girls wearing leotards*. I'm not making this up. No nudity. No breasts. Certainly no genitals. But the Supreme Court upheld the conviction in the Knox case. Now the law is even worse, since it criminalizes morphed images that *look* like kids in leotards, even if the models were 25-year old adults. Be cautious when praising such laws. -Declan ********** Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:10:42 -0400 To: Tepes <tepes@reincarnate.com> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> Subject: Re: My War At 06:59 -0400 6/9/97, Tepes wrote:

Yeah, a friend of mine accidentally came across kiddie-porn a few months ago. She e-mailed all the headers, etc. to Customs' Child Porn dept. and they e-mailed her back saying that they really can't do anything about it. What the hell do they have a Child Porn task force if they can't do anything about it!

Perhaps because Customs has nothing to do with enforcement of domestic laws? I hope you're not proposing expanding the police powers of the Feds. I mean, your friend is doing the equivalent of asking the National Park Service why she isn't getting her welfare checks on time.

What is also equally sick is rape porn.

Excuse me, but what is "rape porn?" What, a picture of two people having sex that's titled "rape?" Not quite. Just like those pictures of a 40 year old guy and a 20 year old girl having "incest sex," it's a fantasy. Free speech. Don't sweat it. Let others enjoy their fantasies. -Declan