At 09:04 24-12-01 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: >Someone was busted for violating his parole in the US for *writing* >something that qualified as "child pornography" in his *private* journal >which he wasn't expecting anyone to look at. His parole officer asked >to look at the journal, and if he refused, that would qualify as >violating his parole, so he pretty much had to. How were any children >harmed in that writing?
If it was fictional, no children were harmed. I would argue that the guy is a sicko anyway, but that is my personal opinion, not a legal matter. >Also, I've heard about people working on child pornography that is just >computer graphics, no actual children involved. If you were a judge >that had to rule on the legality of that, how would you rule? If I had to rule by my own rules, I think I would rule that it is legal to produce such material for personal use; probably call it "artistic freedom" or something like that. However, if I had to rule by Dutch law, I would declare it illegal (since possession of any form of child pornography is illegal in The Netherlands). <snip> >Was the judge in Florida acting reasonably when he told the cartoonist >that to be caught drawing *anything* would be a violation of his parole? I think that was totally unreasonable. It reminds of that arrested computer hacker that, as part of his sentence, was not allowed to use any computer at all for any purpose. >Also, if CBLDF has anything on a website about that Florida case and >someone has the URL handy, I'd love to see it. (I've got too much to do >today to even be *posting*, so I really oughtn't go trying to dig up a >story on the web right now. Feel free to scold me. Just no >bitch-slapping today, OK?) OK, we will postpone slapping you till after X-mas. :-) Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
