Thoughtcrime (Re: My War)

[Declan McCullagh]

Here are some of my responses on another list... --Declan

**********

Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:46:47 -0400
To: "Vangelis" <vangelis at qnis.net>
From: Declan McCullagh <declan at 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 at reincarnate.com>
From: Declan McCullagh <declan at 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