On the Hill: Child Porn "Morphing"

[Mike Duvos]

Black Unicorn <unicorn at 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?