On Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 08:31 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:36:00PM -0700, Eric Cordian wrote:
>> It's unfortunate that the majority of the Amicus briefs filed in this
>> case
>> seem to be from conservative groups and quasi-governmental puppet
>> organizations.
>
> It gets worse. One of the conservative groups reportedly filed on
> behalf of a bunch of right-wing congresscritters.
>
> The Free Speech Coalition's amici get a few more weeks to prepare
> their briefs.
>
"prepare their briefs"...is this sort of like "morphing their panties"?
BTW, this whole "fake child porn" issue has been coming to a head, so to
speak, for a decade or so. I remember talking about this with Keith
Henson back in the early 90s when he was working with the "Amateur
Action" defendants (they went to prison, in part for having images with
titles suggesting child porn, even though no actual images were child
porn). This case also involved a jurisdiction in Kentucky, IIRC, getting
a conviction of residents of California.
As this was around the time of "Terminator 2," with lots of morphing,
and "Morph" had just appeared for the Mac, there was much discussion of
the implications. Some morphed images were pretty convincing (Message to
Jeff Gordon: no, I don't have copies of any of the GIFs on any of my old
disk drives).
If this becomes law, it will be a case of pure thoughtcrime. No victims,
no aggression against another person, no actual people. Just
thoughtcrime.
--Tim May
