Previous Politch message: "Did Supreme Court really overturn 'morphed' kiddie porn ban?" http://www.politechbot.com/p-03401.html
--- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:47:07 -0400 From: "Eric M. Freedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FC: Did Supreme Court really overturn "morphed" kiddie porn ban? -This is correct. No one is challenging either A (real children) or C (use of image of a real child being made to appear as if engaged in sexual conduct) for the very good reason that both are in all likelihood constitutional. -E. --- From: "Ernest Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Did Supreme Court really overturn "morphed" kiddie porn ban? Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:05:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal You are correct. A has been illegal for decades and was unchanged. B,C, and D were the new elements. Only B and D were challenged. --- Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:31:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Eiden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: FC: Did Supreme Court really overturn "morphed" kiddie porn ban? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Declan: This sounds like a slippery slope to me. As computer graphics become more real, how are we to distinguish in future what is real or computer generated? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sign this pro-therapeutic cloning petition: http://www.franklinsociety.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------
