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

Jim Choate ravage at ssz.com
Wed Aug 15 20:16:01 PDT 2001



On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

> 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.

Absolutely the making is 'speech'. The distributing it is 'press'. Only a
lawyer would confuse the two.

Let's look at the situation, if for nothing else to twist your tit ring...

We have a group of persons who commit an act with a child. In the process
a photograph is taken. The photograph is distributed.

Your (ie CACL) claim is that the picture is not itself a crime, and in
particular it is protected as speech.

This assertion is wrong. Here's why.

The person taking the picture was not the only participant who had a say.
Each person in the picture and help create the event had a say. They were
a participant in the 'speech' both in act and recording. The distribution,
or 'press' is a different issue but follows.

Now, the child is clearly a participant in that act as well as a
participant in any claim of 'speech' that might be attributed to the
picture (or recording, or whatever).

Now the standard for expression of ones rights is that you are pretty much
allowed to do whatever you want, until/unless you interfere with another.
Then your right ends, and their right to self defence begins.

Now the child clearly has both a right in the speech aspect as well as the
self-defence aspect.

So, can the child be 'consensual'? No. Children for a variety of reasons
are NOT (and why somebody who claims to be as smart as you do doesn't get
this makes me chuckle, google 'paiget' 'volume') simply 'little adults'
as was so popularly, and universaly held until the later half of this
centry. In other words they don't have the same 'consensual abilities as
adults. Our law recognizes this and provides special protections as a
result.

So, we have a picture, at least one of the participants was forced against
their wishes (or their guardians wishes, select as you may) to
participate.

So, can we really claim that the only issue is the right of speech with
respect to the adults? No.

The picture is not protected speech by the simple expedient that it was
constrained or forced upon at least one of the participants.

I guess that 97 percentile doesn't mean as much as you thought.

(this applies equaly to Declan's specious commentary as well)


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

            natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato
            summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks

                                            Matsuo Basho

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------






More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list