Re: children, porn, automata

[mgraffam@idsi.net]

On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Anonymous wrote:

> 	o-O
> 
> This represents the infant Liberty getting buttfucked by Janet Reno
> with a strap-on.
> 
> Do not export to Maine.

A suggestion... 

Next time you want to wave the flag for liberty, do so responsibly.. you
do more harm than good by posting this.. it makes you sound like a damn
psycho.

I agree that this case is yet another chip out of our liberty, but to be
honest, it is not easy for many people to see this, and I can't
particularly blame them. 

Having an image of some something should not be illegal. It should be (and
is) illegal to _make_ child porn, but not illegal to own it. Making it
victimizes a kid, viewing it doesn't. The prior restraint bullshit about
keeping people from child porn in order to "keep them in check" somehow
is just that.. bullshit. 

On my shelf, I have several books that describe acts of horrible
brutality, and murder; some of those books have images of those acts. It
is not, and should not be illegal to own these Holocaust history books. 

> 
> >Maine Court Upholds Child Porn Law
> >
> >          By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> >
> >               PORTLAND, Maine -- A federal appeals court upheld a federal
> >               law that makes it illegal to possess computer images 


Michael J. Graffam (mgraffam@idsi.net)
"..subordination of one sex to the other is wrong in itself, and now
one of the chief hindrances to human improvement.." John Stuart Mill
"The Subjection of Women"