Re: children, porn, automata

[Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>]

At 11:42 PM 1/30/99 -0500, mgraffam@idsi.net wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Anonymous wrote:


>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.

Who is more psycho, me being puerile or people who can't tell the
difference between
reality and a CRT making laws?  

>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

What if there are *no* children involved?  Just an artist and a drawing
tablet?

Then no one is hurt.  So there is no crime.

Mere illustrations for a book, say, Lolita, would be outlawed in Maine.

Obviously, sexual interest about prepubescents is ill.  But equating
*fictional* synthetic images, or text with actual violence against people is
sicker.  

>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. 

I think your point here is that possession of images isn't the same as
perpetrating the violence depicted.  And you uphold that for kiddie porn
--I admire this
ability to uphold principles for others, no matter how disgusting, 
and I agree with you.  But my point was about real (ie, evidence of an
actual assault) vs. fictional and the conceptual difficulty this poses
for legislators in Maine.  

Ever since the caves of france, we have been free to depict what we will,
with whatever tools we find, on whatever surfaces we like.

Bits are bits.  First they restrict 2-D bits, then 1-D bits, to hell with
that pesky constitution.

Ciao