(I'll only make a few comments.) Ed Carp writes:

...

There are some quasi-legitimate issues surrounding the area of child erotica. Was the child coerced? Was consent meaningful? Etc.

There are no quasi-legitimate issues surrounding child pornography in the United States. It doesn't matter, legally whether consent was obtained or not, etc. Child pornography is not legal. To make, sell, possess, distribute, or conspire to do any of the above is a crime.

I meant "quasi-legitimate" in the sense of being at least a real criminal issue. By contrast, merely discussing the issues cannot possibly be a crime, nor can, IMHO, the creation of such a group absent actual evidence of criminality. Sort of like shutting down "alt.drugs" on the grounds that illegal drugs are often discussed. (We can all think of several dozen newsgroups that touch on subjects illegal in many states of the U.S., in many countries of the world, etc.)

In the US, it doesn't matter what their actual ages are - if they are depicted as being under the age of consent, they are illegal.

Ah, but what if no mention is made of the age? If I happen to have a collection of pictures of 19-year-olds-who-look-15, because of my own esthetic standards, is this illegal? It sounds totally legal to me, and I think a court opinion will ultimately be rendered that so long as the models actually are over 18, no matter how young they look, no crime as ocurred. (Actually, the various "cheerleader porn" films cater to this fantasy and are not classed as child porn, so long as the actresses are 18 or older.) On purely computer-generated images:

Not at all. It's not an issue of exploitation in that case, nor is it an issue of "thoughtcrime", since the thought has produced an actual image that can be viewed by others.

I strongly disagree. A computer image that never involved an actual child, cannot reasonably be viewed as child porn. Can a computer-generated "snuff" film be viewed as murder? (I see acted-out murders every day on t.v.)

Nothing in this email should be construed as a personal attack against you, Tim. I'm just trying to relate the laws and the facts as they are.

I don't take it as a personal attack. Ed's comments were thoughtful, even if I disagreed with some of them. By the way, I agree with some comments I've received that this subject is somewhat far afield from the "Cypherpunks charter," such as it is, but I'm finding the hundreds of highly repetitive and arcane postings about the same old remailer issues, and the internals of obscure mail programs, not all that close to the charter either. (I'm not saying they shouldn't be posted, and some have been well-written summaries, but I am saying they're highly-detailed nuts-and-bolts issues which probably are meaninful to only a few readers.) Part of the Cypherpunks approach is to "monkey wrench" the "Surveillance State" by flooding the comm lines with encrypted junk, with suspicious-looking files that will soak up surveillance time, and with various other subversive things that will push the boundaries. -Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: by arrangement Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it.