"Morphed" child porn case ruling text (FSC v. Reno)

Anonymous nobody at REPLAY.COM
Fri Aug 15 04:32:09 PDT 1997

Mike Duvos wrote:
> While I suspect the typical citizen is unlikely to have a particularly
> strong reaction one way or the other to sexual depictions of children, as
> long as it is not a photographic record of an actual child being treated
> abusively, there is a obvious subset of frothy pointy-headed individuals
> who should be shielded from such material at all costs, or they may be
> completely unable to control their behavior.
> They are of course the self-appointed "child protectors", none of whom
> could care less about what rights children really need or want, as long as
> no one appears naked.

Question: "If someone did a study that conclusively proves that free
  availability of child pornography leads to a substantial decrease
  in the amount of child abuse taking place, will our legislators and
  our ministers support the legalization of child pornography?

Answer: "Right... And I'm the fucking pope..."

  When did protecting abused children become such a high priority
for the fascists? When people told them to shove their fascism under
the banner of "moral values" up their ass.
  If we wipe drug abuse and child abuse from the face of the earth,
the fascists will decide that pictures of naked people cause tooth
decay, and launch a "War Against Bad Dental Hygiene." Of course,
this will mean that Law Enforcement will need the power to check
inside our mouths at their every whim, and imprison people who have
dental cavities.

"I am not a mushroom..."

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list