WHERE'S DILDO? [was: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report]

[Sandy Sandfort]

Jimbo sputtered:

> > > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives
> > > the act.
> >
> > Nonetheless, they are separate and separable.  Outlawing the
> act does not
> > require outlawing the speech.
>
> No they are not. You can't make the picture
> without commiting the act.

A not-so-clever straw man.  "Making" the picture is not the speech in
question, Duh.  Distributing the picture is.  And you can distribute the
picture, without committing the underlying act yourself.

> If you could, it wouldn't be 'porno'...

As I said (and Jimbo ignored), porn is not illegal, per se, only obscenity.
Perhaps that is a distinction without a difference, but that's the way the
laws work.


 S a n d y