Underage nudity in film
James Gifford
(four stars and a flourish, American classic, masterpiece) film to
another thread.
In the movie, Thora Birch makes a brief bare-breasted appearance. I'm
pretty sure it was not a body double, and it was not digital
post-production work. There she was, hooters a-blazin', on the screen.
No big deal, except that she was born in March 1982, making her 17, or
possibly 16 at the time of filming.
Under what circumstances can an under-18 actress appear in a frankly
sexual nude scene without contravening child porn laws?
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gif...@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Robert Heinlein FAQ |
| and information on "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" |
clyde jones
| I recently saw "American Beauty," and I'll leave discussion of this
| (four stars and a flourish, American classic, masterpiece) film to
| another thread.
|
| In the movie, Thora Birch makes a brief bare-breasted appearance. I'm
| pretty sure it was not a body double, and it was not digital
| post-production work. There she was, hooters a-blazin', on the screen.
|
| No big deal, except that she was born in March 1982, making her 17, or
| possibly 16 at the time of filming.
|
| Under what circumstances can an under-18 actress appear in a frankly
| sexual nude scene without contravening child porn laws?
|
According to an interview with her and Mena Suvari (the object of Kevin
Spaceys desire) in Details magazine (Dec 1999), her parents had to sign an
consent form.
--
Pray to God, But Hammer Away
- Spanish Proverb
Clyde Jones
rot13'd
jjj.trbpvgvrf.pbz/pylqr-wbarf
pyl...@trbpvgvrf.pbz
Pryy 443.226.6054
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> In article <385138...@nitrosyncretic.com>, gif...@nitrosyncretic.com wrote:
>
> | I recently saw "American Beauty," and I'll leave discussion of this
> | (four stars and a flourish, American classic, masterpiece) film to
> | another thread.
> |
> | In the movie, Thora Birch makes a brief bare-breasted appearance. I'm
> | pretty sure it was not a body double, and it was not digital
> | post-production work.
And, under US law, it wouldn't matter it if was.
> | There she was, hooters a-blazin', on the screen.
> | No big deal, except that she was born in March 1982, making her 17, or
> | possibly 16 at the time of filming.
> | Under what circumstances can an under-18 actress appear in a frankly
> | sexual nude scene without contravening child porn laws?
> According to an interview with her and Mena Suvari (the object of Kevin
> Spaceys desire) in Details magazine (Dec 1999), her parents had to sign an
> consent form.
Which of course means nothing -- the kiddie-porn laws have no
exemption for parental consent, or AFAIK, for "redeeming social
value." The DreamWorks people were just relying on having better
lawyers than Barnes and Nobles (which got hit on a bogus kiddie-porn
beef a couple of years ago for an art book).
M.
James Gifford
> gif...@nitrosyncretic.com wrote:
>> In the movie, Thora Birch makes a brief bare-breasted appearance.
>> No big deal, except that she was born in March 1982, making her 17,
>> or possibly 16 at the time of filming.
>>
>> Under what circumstances can an under-18 actress appear in a frankly
>> sexual nude scene without contravening child porn laws?
> According to an interview with her and Mena Suvari (the object of
> Kevin Spaceys desire) in Details magazine (Dec 1999), her parents had
> to sign an consent form.
Okay, that's part of an answer. But is that all there is to it? Is
"child porn" (let's just take the term as it's commonly meant, without
getting into side issues) okay because the parents permit it?
Granted, a 16-17 yo actress is not likely to be an innocent naif and a
brief, relatively tasteful nude scene is no big deal. But given that
issues of Penthouse with the 16 yo Traci Lords in them are routinely
stricken from eBay and elsewhere, where's the dividing line?
Dan Hanson
appeal to 'prurient interests' or something like that. So the Discovery
channel can show footage of 12-year old naked tribal members, but the
Playboy channel can't show 12-year old girls in the nude.
It's a fine line, and an arbitrary one. But so is all of pornography
legislation. Much porn legislation may be unconstitutional, because their
may be no way to tell if you're breaking the law until a judge interprets
the result. For instance, is a naturism magazine that shows naked families
'kiddie porn'? I'm willing to bet that 80% of the people to read that stuff
do it because it's a legal way to get their jollies looking at naked
children.
There was a case here in Canada a couple of years ago about a couple who
were charged with kiddie porn because a photomat employee called the cops
after developing a bunch of pictures of their naked children. The scenes
were innocent enough (kids in the bathtub, etc). In the end they were
aquitted, but it could have gone the other way. And there was no way those
parents could know before the actual trial whether or not they were
committing a crime.
Bill Baldwin
>In the movie, Thora Birch makes a brief bare-breasted appearance. I'm
>pretty sure it was not a body double, and it was not digital
>
>No big deal, except that she was born in March 1982, making her 17, or
>possibly 16 at the time of filming.
>
>Under what circumstances can an under-18 actress appear in a frankly
>sexual nude scene without contravening child porn laws?
Here's Roger Ebert's reply from "The Movie Answer Man" at
http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/ebert10.html:
A representative of the Jinks/Cohen Co., the producer, says: "It is not
illegal to have people under 18 nude or partially nude on film. The California
Child Labor Board approved the scene, and its representative was on the set
when it was filmed, as were Thora's parents."
Dutch Courage
>Which of course means nothing -- the kiddie-porn laws have no
>exemption for parental consent, or AFAIK, for "redeeming social
>value."
I -think- there's some sort of caveat for, uh...you know, unprurient stuff.
"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn
human actions, but to understand them" -Spinoza
"The ridiculing and scorn, that's just gravy."-Courage
Big Iron5
>>Which of course means nothing -- the kiddie-porn laws have no
>>exemption for parental consent, or AFAIK, for "redeeming social
>>value."
>
>I -think- there's some sort of caveat for, uh...you know, unprurient stuff.
The relevant federal statutes provide that the material depict minors in
"sexually explicit activity," defined as follows:
" actual or simulated -
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital,
oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between
persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of
any person."
This seemingly allows for breast shots so long as the minor is not depicted
masturbating or engaging in some form of intercourse, etc. It is no defense
that the minor was not the one actually doing the deeds, or depicted, so long
as it appears that way.
Oh, and the laws require that the minor be "identifiable" in order for it to be
verboten.
AlanKngsly
>| post-production work. There she was, hooters a-blazin', on the screen.
>|
>| No big deal, except that she was born in March 1982, making her 17, or
>| possibly 16 at the time of filming.
>|
>| Under what circumstances can an under-18 actress appear in a frankly
>| sexual nude scene without contravening child porn laws?
>|
>
>
>Spaceys desire) in Details magazine (Dec 1999), her parents had to sign an
>consent form.
What about the law the GOP Congress passed a couple years back making it
illegal to put any scene in a movie (even using body doubles) that made it even
*appear* as though an actress under eighteen was being shown nude?
Alan
Jose (JRDelirio) Diaz
Big Iron5 wrote in message <19991210181251...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
>Dutch Courage writes:
>
>
>
>>>-- the kiddie-porn laws have no
>>>exemption for parental consent, or AFAIK, for "redeeming social
>>>value."
>>
>>I -think- there's some sort of caveat for, uh...you know, unprurient
stuff.
>
>The relevant federal statutes provide that the material depict minors in
>"sexually explicit activity," defined as follows:
>
>" actual or simulated -
>(A) sexual intercourse,
>(C) masturbation;
>(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
>(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of
>any person."
>
>
>This seemingly allows for breast shots so long as the minor is not depicted
>masturbating or engaging in some form of intercourse, etc. It is no
defense
>that the minor was not the one actually doing the deeds, or depicted, so
long
>as it appears that way.
Ant there have been recent moves by our lawmakers to extend this to include
the apparent *portrayal of* a minor doing a,b,c..., even if all actual
players are adult (or digitally generated!!).
>
>Oh, and the laws require that the minor be "identifiable" in order for it
to be
>verboten.
Which also creates something of a gray area, since some folks interpret it
as meaning "identifiable as a minor" as opposed to the conventional sense of
identifiable as to who exactly it is.
jrd
Dennis McClendon
photographs of his wife. She was under 18, making it kiddie porn, even
thought the age of consent in their province is 16.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> James Gifford wrote:
> >In the movie, Thora Birch makes a brief bare-breasted appearance. I'm
> >pretty sure it was not a body double, and it was not digital
> >post-production work. There she was, hooters a-blazin', on the screen.
> >
> >No big deal, except that she was born in March 1982, making her 17, or
> >possibly 16 at the time of filming.
> >
> >Under what circumstances can an under-18 actress appear in a frankly
> >sexual nude scene without contravening child porn laws?
>
> Here's Roger Ebert's reply from "The Movie Answer Man" at
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/ebert10.html:
>
> A representative of the Jinks/Cohen Co., the producer, says: "It is not
> illegal to have people under 18 nude or partially nude on film. The California
> Child Labor Board approved the scene, and its representative was on the set
> when it was filmed, as were Thora's parents."
Ooooh, must have been Daddy's finest moment. "Show 'em your tit,
pumpkin!"
I remember Pauline Kael's remark on a 12-year-old girl, who, having
won a role after an extensive talent search, appeared nude in a
controversial Louis Malle movie: "Did the mothers of the unsuccessful
girls watch that scene and say to themselves 'That could have been my
little Suzy up there.'?"
FWIW, the 12-year-old was Brooke Shields.
M.
Eric Boyd
alank...@aol.com (AlanKngsly) wrote:rm.
>
> What about the law the GOP Congress passed a couple years back making it
> illegal to put any scene in a movie (even using body doubles) that made
it even
> *appear* as though an actress under eighteen was being shown nude?
This was passed around the same time that Jennifer Montgomery released her
film "Art for Teachers of Children" which contained not only depictions of
sex between a minor and adult, but also actual child porn images. But this
movie is in no kiddie porn. Quite the opposite. It is based on the
relationship that the director had when she was 14 with the photographer
Jock Sturges, who is the same photographer in the Barnes and Nobel case. I
managed to catch this film in a very limited release and would recommend
that all of you concerned about this issue try to find it on video.
-seric
--
"There is nothing it is like to be a zombie."
-David Chalmers
Tim Robinson
Eric Boyd <se...@hypercon.com> wrote in message
news:seric-11129...@206.245.nas1.ippool.hypercon.com...
I find all this to be one of the two thorniest moral issues of modern
society [1]. I find it amazing that technically an 18 year old guy in
possession of nude pics of his 17 year old wife is a criminal. Meanwhile,
from europe we get art films that feature direct child nudity. Is this
evil? Or does it just present life as it is? Is murder worse than child
abuse? If so, why do we tolerate murder movies? Someone explain this to
me. If people can't help their aberrent sexuality, then why don't we lock
up homosexuals[2] along with pedophiles? Someone once sent me a snuff video
(no... get your mind out of the gutter and don't ask me for it... it was
immediately deleted). If I had possessed that and films of child sex, which
would get me more time in prison? I asked the pedophilia question once on
this newsgroup and never really got any sensible opinions. The question
roughly was: if people can't help their aberrent sexual behaviour, why are
pedos arrested? If we arrest them for their aberrence, why don't we arrest
gays or those into sado-masochism or bestiality? Frankly, I have a base
urge to condemn the whole works of the above, but my libertarian
sensibilities drive me to contest all of it. Someone kindly be good enough
to suggest consistency to sex crimes.
[1] The other is the issue of cloning and life extension, but I don't want
to get into that now.
[2] Gimme a break. Homosexuality is NOT mainstream
deepstblu
> I asked the pedophilia question once on
> this newsgroup and never really got any sensible opinions. The question
> roughly was: if people can't help their aberrent sexual behaviour, why are
> pedos arrested? If we arrest them for their aberrence, why don't we arrest
> gays or those into sado-masochism or bestiality?
Eight-year-olds don't fully know the meaning of having their, um, depths
plumbed, and I would be very surprised if many pedophiles explained it.
On the other hand, I believe there are places where a 21-year-old can go
to jail for having sex with a 17-year-old. That's just ridiculous.
So there's a line out there begging to be drawn in the proper place. As
usual, nobody really knows where it is.
And if you want to use this logic to bust people for bestiality, be my
guest. As a practical matter, though, that sheep's parents are never
gonna talk to the cops...
> Frankly, I have a base
> urge to condemn the whole works of the above, but my libertarian
> sensibilities drive me to contest all of it.
your base urges in order to defend other people's base urges. If you
can't, you're only human, but I say give it a shot.
Rick B.
Emanuel Brown
<gif...@nitrosyncretic.com> wrote:
>I recently saw "American Beauty," and I'll leave discussion of this
>(four stars and a flourish, American classic, masterpiece) film to
>another thread.
>
>pretty sure it was not a body double, and it was not digital
>post-production work. There she was, hooters a-blazin', on the screen.
Counter-view. There'd been some discussion of this scene on
alt.video.dvd before I saw AB, so I was watching for effects during
this scene, and to me it looked like they matted the body of someone
else over Birch. There was part of the frame of the window hitting her
at the neck-line, and the torso didn't seem to match - it looked like
the double slightly shorter than the actress, making Birch's head
appear to be too high in the picture. And the breasts simply looked
bigger than her own for the rest of the film . And while lots of posts
mentioned she did the seen topless, I don't see specific claims that
they used her body.
As others have pointed out, it would still be illegal, but that was
my impression.
epbrown
Portable Computing FAQ - http://home.att.net/~epbrown01
Sony VAIO 505 info - http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/sony505.html
Join the 505 Mailing List - http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/sony505
eFax phone # - 801-328-3789
Emanuel Brown
wrote:
>I find all this to be one of the two thorniest moral issues of modern
>society [1]. I find it amazing that technically an 18 year old guy in
>possession of nude pics of his 17 year old wife is a criminal. Meanwhile,
>from europe we get art films that feature direct child nudity
Speaking of which, does the EU have *any* laws about this? When I
was in junior high, I remember seeing a foreign film on cable about a
kid my age at the time from a wealthy family. War broke out and all of
the adult males went to war, and the kid ended up sleeping with darn
near every woman within a hundred mile radius (except, of course, the
one girl he had a crush on). The shocking thing to me at the time was
that the guy in the movie really did seem to be my age! The film was
in Italian or French - are they just looser there about kids in
movies?
Big Iron5
>I find all this to be one of the two thorniest moral issues of modern
>society [1]. I find it amazing that technically an 18 year old guy in
>possession of nude pics of his 17 year old wife is a criminal. Meanwhile,
>from europe we get art films that feature direct child nudity. Is this
>evil? Or does it just present life as it is? Is murder worse than child
>abuse? If so, why do we tolerate murder movies? Someone explain this to
>me.
The child porn restrictions may go overboard, but the distinction between them
and "murder movies" is sanctioned by the Supreme Court.
If people can't help their aberrent sexuality, then why don't we lock
>up homosexuals[2] along with pedophiles?
Maybe it's because homosexuals as such aren't injuring anybody, while
pedophiles certainly are. I mean, is that really so freakin' hard to figure
out?
Someone once sent me a snuff video
>(no... get your mind out of the gutter and don't ask me for it... it was
>immediately deleted).
Uh huh -- it just showed up in your video library by magic.
> If I had possessed that and films of child sex, which
>would get me more time in prison?
The kiddie porn, in all likelihood.
> I asked the pedophilia question once on
>this newsgroup and never really got any sensible opinions.
Probably wasn't a sensible question.
> The question
>roughly was: if people can't help their aberrent sexual behaviour, why are
>pedos arrested?
Because they injure people who are not capable of consenting to sexual
activity. I suppose Dahmer should have just been given a pat on the rump and
sent for counselling.
If we arrest them for their aberrence, why don't we arrest
>gays or those into sado-masochism or bestiality?
Bestiality is against the law, I believe, in most places. The others, of
course, aren't really harming anyone, your bigotry notwithstanding.
> Frankly, I have a base
>urge to condemn the whole works of the above, but my libertarian
>sensibilities drive me to contest all of it. Someone kindly be good enough
>to suggest consistency to sex crimes.
It's plenty consistent -- the consistant thread is the notion of lawful,
informed consent.
>[1] The other is the issue of cloning and life extension, but I don't want
>to get into that now.
Sure there are only two?
>[2] Gimme a break. Homosexuality is NOT mainstream
And why should anyone give a shit whether it is "mainstream" or not? It's
common enough, and it doesn't hurt anyone.
<further justly denigrating comments deleted>
Dutch Courage
>I find all this to be one of the two thorniest moral issues of modern
>society [1]. I find it amazing that technically an 18 year old guy in
>possession of nude pics of his 17 year old wife is a criminal.
Hmmm. No, she'd have to be actually having sex, or at least doing the Hustler
beaver spread. Even then, he may have to be distributing them and frankly I
doubt anyone would care very much unless forced to make an issue of it.
> Meanwhile,
>from europe we get art films that feature direct child nudity.
Boy, you can do anything in Europe. It's amazing to me that this is the same
Europe which socializes everything.
> Is this
>evil? Or does it just present life as it is?
I would imagine the issue hinges on factors like are the children in question
16, or 6? Are they having sex, or are they merely nude? Are they nude from the
waist up? Are they doing spread beaver shots?
> Is murder worse than child
>abuse?
I dunno. Prolly.
> If so, why do we tolerate murder movies?
Uh...I'm pretty sure if you film someone while you kill them, you'd go to jail
and all copies of your film would be confiscated. If you're planning to do such
a thing, let me know first, though, so I can become the annoited one of AFU.
> Someone explain this to
>me. If people can't help their aberrent sexuality, then why don't we lock
>up homosexuals[2]
Because homosexuality isn't "aberrent," based on the legally recognized right
of a grownup to offer consent.
> along with pedophiles?
I hope one of your kids grows up queer.
> Someone once sent me a snuff video
No they didn't.
>(no... get your mind out of the gutter and don't ask me for it... it was
>immediately deleted). If I had possessed that and films of child sex, which
>would get me more time in prison? I asked the pedophilia question once on
>this newsgroup and never really got any sensible opinions. The question
>roughly was: if people can't help their aberrent sexual behaviour, why are
>pedos arrested?
To keep them away from small children.
> If we arrest them for their aberrence, why don't we arrest
>gays or those into sado-masochism or bestiality? Frankly, I have a base
>urge to condemn the whole works of the above, but my libertarian
>sensibilities drive me to contest all of it.
A) those aren't your libertarian sensibilities, those are your liberal
sensibilities. Libertarian doesn't mean what you think it does.
>[2] Gimme a break. Homosexuality is NOT mainstream
I am not at all sure that "not mainstream" and "aberrent" are interchangable
terms.
Joe Shimkus
wrote:
>"Bill Baldwin" <ju...@micronet.net> writes:
>
>> James Gifford wrote:
>> >In the movie, Thora Birch makes a brief bare-breasted appearance. I'm
>> >pretty sure it was not a body double, and it was not digital
>> >post-production work. There she was, hooters a-blazin', on the screen.
>> >
>> >No big deal, except that she was born in March 1982, making her 17, or
>> >possibly 16 at the time of filming.
>> >
>> >Under what circumstances can an under-18 actress appear in a frankly
>> >sexual nude scene without contravening child porn laws?
>>
>> Here's Roger Ebert's reply from "The Movie Answer Man" at
>> http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/ebert10.html:
>>
>> A representative of the Jinks/Cohen Co., the producer, says: "It is not
>> illegal to have people under 18 nude or partially nude on film. The
>> California
>> Child Labor Board approved the scene, and its representative was on the
>> set
>> when it was filmed, as were Thora's parents."
>
I, too, was a bit amazed that that scene from "American Beauty" got the
go ahead.
>Ooooh, must have been Daddy's finest moment. "Show 'em your tit,
>pumpkin!"
>
Reminds me of the time one of my brothers-in-law and my sister (his
wife, just to be clear :-) went to Colorado (Boulder?) to see an exhibit
of one of his daughters' (previous marriage) photographs. She
apparently forgot to mention that at least part of what made them "her"
photographs was the fact that she appeared in them, in various amounts
of undress. According to my sister, he held up pretty well particularly
given that he was blind-sided.
- Joe
--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
or send e-mail with subject "Send PGP key".
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A
rob...@bestweb.net
>Is murder worse than child abuse? If so,
>why do we tolerate murder movies? Someone explain this to me.
The legislative phenomenon we see now in the USA is a result of the
interaction between (1) animus against sexual expression per se, (2) concern
for welfare of the innocent (children in this case), and (3) favor for
freedom of expression.
Factors #1 and 3 clash. There are a number of people who would like to
outlaw pornography in general, but they can't because of factor #3.
However, the addition of factor #2 makes it feasible (i.e. popular enough
and ruled constitutional) to outlaw pornography where its production can be
said to harm or cheat children. (This does not apply to portrayal of
murders, because the actors aren't considered to be harmed or cheated by
such protrayal.)
Here's where it gets tricky. Having established the precedent that "child
pornography" is sufficiently bad to outlaw under the conditions above,
people motivated by factor #1 then take advantage of the fuzzy concept of
"child pornography", and pull a fast one. They include in the concept cases
where factor #2 is not really involved, and outlaw SIMULATED child porn.
(This is equivalent to the actors portraying a murder but not really being
injured.) Remember, they're trying to outlaw porn as boradly as possible,
and they're counting on people not to analyze the situation enough to make
the distinction. They've succeeded at the level of legislation; it remains
to be seen whether they'll win under constitutional inquiry in court.
Robert
Net-Tamer V 1.11 - Registered
fastrada
received "The Usual Suspects" for Hannukah, fulfilling my Kevin Spacey
worshop for the moment). I actually have a definitive answer for this
one.
I quote from the Roger Ebert column, "Movie Answer Man" of October 10th:
Q. Thora Birch is under 18. Was that a stand-in for her topless scene
in "American Beauty?" Isn't it illegal for minors to be shown
nude in
films?
A. A representative of the Jinks/Cohen Co., the producer, says: "It is
not illegal to have people under 18 nude or partially nude on
film. The
California Child Labor Board approved the scene, and its
representative was on the set when it was filmed, as were
Thora's
parents."
Regards,
Joseph
--
"i don't have to put up with this shabby crap--i'm a
journalist!" --transmetropolitan
fastrada
Mann and Jack Sturges books do not contain "sexual" poses (whatever
those are, considering that any pose can be sexual). By means of
context, these are merely not-very-good black and white photgraphs of
children. If these are child pornography, so are books by Anne Geddes
and Kirsh & Quindlen.
fastrada
>
> In article <19991210181822...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> alank...@aol.com (AlanKngsly) wrote:rm.
> >
> > What about the law the GOP Congress passed a couple years back making it
> > illegal to put any scene in a movie (even using body doubles) that made
> it even
> > *appear* as though an actress under eighteen was being shown nude?
>
> This was passed around the same time that Jennifer Montgomery released her
> film "Art for Teachers of Children" which contained not only depictions of
> sex between a minor and adult, but also actual child porn images. But this
> movie is in no kiddie porn. Quite the opposite. It is based on the
> relationship that the director had when she was 14 with the photographer
> Jock Sturges, who is the same photographer in the Barnes and Nobel case. I
> managed to catch this film in a very limited release and would recommend
> that all of you concerned about this issue try to find it on video.
>
>
> --
>
> "There is nothing it is like to be a zombie."
> -David Chalmers
The Barnes & Noble case, which is in Oklahoma, concerns a book by Sally
Mann.
Eric Boyd
<fast...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Eric Boyd wrote:
> >
> > In article <19991210181822...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> > alank...@aol.com (AlanKngsly) wrote:rm.
> > >
> > > What about the law the GOP Congress passed a couple years back making it
> > > illegal to put any scene in a movie (even using body doubles) that made
> > it even
> > > *appear* as though an actress under eighteen was being shown nude?
> >
> > This was passed around the same time that Jennifer Montgomery released her
> > film "Art for Teachers of Children" which contained not only depictions of
> > sex between a minor and adult, but also actual child porn images. But this
> > movie is in no kiddie porn. Quite the opposite. It is based on the
> > relationship that the director had when she was 14 with the photographer
> > Jock Sturges, who is the same photographer in the Barnes and Nobel case. I
> > managed to catch this film in a very limited release and would recommend
> > that all of you concerned about this issue try to find it on video.
>
> The Barnes & Noble case, which is in Oklahoma, concerns a book by Sally
> Mann.
Sorry, I was getting this case confused with an earlier one.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> Is murder worse than child
> abuse? If so, why do we tolerate murder movies? Someone explain this to
> me.
You realize, I hope, that Gwennyth Paltrow didn't *really* kill Michael
Douglas in _A Perfect Murder_ (oops, spoiler)?
The reason that *simulated* child pornography (where no actual child
participates) is illegal is that people are really, really stupid.
> If people can't help their aberrent sexuality, then why don't we lock
> up homosexuals[2] along with pedophiles?
> Someone once sent me a snuff video
No, he didn't. See www.snopes.com .
> The question
> roughly was: if people can't help their aberrent sexual behaviour, why are
> pedos arrested?
Failure of the antecendant: people can HELP (i.e., not perform) their
aberrent sexual behaviour.
Only a few behavior are outside conscious control -- breathing, heart
beat, sneezing; the rest are indulgences in (admittedly involuntary)
preference.
Try this with the next pedophile who tells you he "can't help" his
behavior. Show him a small boy and a large man and say, "You can have
sex with this boy, after which his father here will beat you to death
with a pickax, or else you can go home." All of a sudden, given
sufficient incentive, he will find reserves of willpower.
Try to suppress someone's coughing with death threats.
> Frankly, I have a base
> urge to condemn the whole works of the above, but my libertarian
> sensibilities drive me to contest all of it. Someone kindly be good enough
> to suggest consistency to sex crimes.
Really? For myself, I see other people's sexual peculiars (that I do
not share) on a spectrum from odd through ridiculous on to disgusting,
but have no particular desire to dissuade or discourage them, as long
as I don't have to watch.
If two guys asked my advice, should they sodomize each other or just
smoke cigarettes, I'd have vote for buggery.
M.
Carl Fink
>
>Under what circumstances can an under-18 actress appear in a frankly
>sexual nude scene without contravening child porn laws?
Well, they include PRETTY BABY with then-ten-year-old Brooke Shields.
(Was it ten? Something close to that.)
--
Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
I-Con's Science and Technology Guest of Honor in 2000 will be Geoffrey
A. Landis. See <http://www.iconsf.org> for I-Con information.
Al Yellon
>On Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:29:19 -0800 James Gifford
<gif...@nitrosyncretic.com> wrote:
>>
>>Under what circumstances can an under-18 actress appear in a frankly
>>sexual nude scene without contravening child porn laws?
>
>Well, they include PRETTY BABY with then-ten-year-old Brooke Shields.
>
>(Was it ten? Something close to that.)
Shields was born July 31, 1965, and Pretty Baby came out in 1978, which made
her probably 12 when it was being filmed, possibly 13.
--
***********************************
AY-- Charter Member, DBFC
(http://www.dbfc.org)
***********************************
rob...@bestweb.net
>On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:47:33 -0600, "Tim Robinson" <bo...@see.sig>
>wrote:
>>from europe we get art films that feature direct child nudity. Is
>>this evil? Or does it just present life as it is? Is murder
>>worse than child abuse? If so, why do we tolerate murder movies?
>>Someone explain this to me.
>Umm, maybe because nobody's actually being killed in a movie. But
>when children are exploited for the sexual gratification of adults,
>that's real child abuse.
But that doesn't explain intolerance of SIMULATED child pornography, where
no actual child is actually being abused. I refer to instances in which an
actual child may be shown, but the sexual content simulated, or wherein the
sexual content is real, but the child is simulated, or both are simulated.
fastrada
>
> In article <38528C...@ix.netcom.com>, fastrada
> <fast...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Eric Boyd wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <19991210181822...@ng-ba1.aol.com>,
> > > alank...@aol.com (AlanKngsly) wrote:rm.
> > > >
> > > > What about the law the GOP Congress passed a couple years back making it
> > > > illegal to put any scene in a movie (even using body doubles) that made
> > > it even
> > > > *appear* as though an actress under eighteen was being shown nude?
> > >
> > > This was passed around the same time that Jennifer Montgomery released her
> > > film "Art for Teachers of Children" which contained not only depictions of
> > > sex between a minor and adult, but also actual child porn images. But this
> > > movie is in no kiddie porn. Quite the opposite. It is based on the
> > > relationship that the director had when she was 14 with the photographer
> > > Jock Sturges, who is the same photographer in the Barnes and Nobel case. I
> > > managed to catch this film in a very limited release and would recommend
> > > that all of you concerned about this issue try to find it on video.
>
> >
> > The Barnes & Noble case, which is in Oklahoma, concerns a book by Sally
> > Mann.
>
> Sorry, I was getting this case confused with an earlier one.
>
> -seric
>
Actually, I did a bit of checking, and there was a case two years ago in
Tennessee involving B&N and Jock Sturges books that was dismissed. As
far as I can tell, the Sally Mann case is still ongoing.
Perry Farmer
->
-> No, he didn't. See www.snopes.com .
There is no proof that this has or has not occured, only that there is a
claim that non have ever been found and there is a standing offer of a cool
million for a verified one.
Perry
Tim Robinson
<mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com> wrote in message
news:m3ln71l...@zorro.civet...
> "Tim Robinson" <bo...@see.sig> writes:
> > Someone once sent me a snuff video
>
Visited the website. I gotta tell you, if the one I saw was fake, I can see
why it would even make cops think it's real.
Tim Robinson
<rob...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
news:4EA44.3231$Ye.2...@monger.newsread.com...
This, of course, is my point. Wasn't there some guy in florida who was
drawing kid-porn pictures and he got arrested for it. Ok, a bit creepy
admittedly, but precisely who did he hurt?
Tim Robinson
Perry Farmer <perry....@thefarm.wa.com> wrote in message
news:9449...@thefarm.wa.com...
> -> > Someone once sent me a snuff video
> ->
> -> No, he didn't. See www.snopes.com .
>
> There is no proof that this has or has not occured, only that there is a
> claim that non have ever been found and there is a standing offer of a
cool
> million for a verified one.
Perry, I normally hate to reply to your posts because I know what it does to
threading... but...
I have to agree. If anyone did such a thing professionally, they are
definitely NOT going to have the film show anything incriminating in the
video. Too damn many people disappear and die. When some videos turn up
and nobody knows who it is in the video, well, gee.. no wonder it can be
dismissed as a fake.
I remember my wife discovering that porn "actually showed people having
sex." Amazingly naive. I pointed out to her that if it's done behind
closed doors, there is someone filming it. I would venture to say that
includes rapes and murders. I think it's naive to think otherwise.
rob...@bestweb.net
>Speaking of which, does the EU have *any* laws about this? When I
>was in junior high, I remember seeing a foreign film on cable about
>a kid my age at the time from a wealthy family. War broke out and
>all of the adult males went to war, and the kid ended up sleeping
>with darn near every woman within a hundred mile radius (except, of
>course, the one girl he had a crush on). The shocking thing to me
>at the time was that the guy in the movie really did seem to be my
>age! The film was in Italian or French - are they just looser there
>about kids in movies?
They're just looser about sex in general.
BobKinDC
>This, of course, is my point. Wasn't there some guy in florida who was
>drawing kid-porn pictures and he got arrested for it. Ok, a bit creepy
>admittedly, but precisely who did he hurt?
His name is Mike Diana, and he has the odd distinction of being the only
cartoonist in America to be successfully prosecuted on an obscenity rap. In
the alternative comics community, this has made him a bit of a cause celebre
and a First Amendment martyr, but his stuff really is kinda vile (check out his
link at http://slaughter.net/malefact/5-diana.html ).
His defenders claim his work is a protest against (or expose of) child abuse.
Judging from the work, I'm not sure his motivations are anywhere near that
cerebral or altruistc.
------------------
--Bob Kennedy Alexandria, VA
And for you spambots out there: fcc...@fcc.gov sse...@fcc.gov
bken...@fcc.gov sn...@fcc.gov hfur...@fcc.gov
mpo...@fcc.gov gtri...@fcc.gov pres...@whitehouse.gov
first...@whitehouse.gov
Dan Hanson
of the films they made, which apparently show young girls being used
sexually and then killed. Hard for us Canadians to know the exact details,
since our justice system has put a ban on any information regarding the
case.
David Lentz
BobKinDC wrote:
>
> Tim Robinson wrote:
>
> >This, of course, is my point. Wasn't there some guy in florida who was
> >drawing kid-porn pictures and he got arrested for it. Ok, a bit creepy
> >admittedly, but precisely who did he hurt?
>
> His name is Mike Diana, and he has the odd distinction of being the only
> cartoonist in America to be successfully prosecuted on an obscenity rap. In
> the alternative comics community, this has made him a bit of a cause celebre
> and a First Amendment martyr, but his stuff really is kinda vile (check out his
> link at http://slaughter.net/malefact/5-diana.html ).
>
> His defenders claim his work is a protest against (or expose of) child abuse.
> Judging from the work, I'm not sure his motivations are anywhere near that
> cerebral or altruistc.
The idea of an obscene cartoon boggles my libertarian
sensibilities. If you don't like a particular artist's cartoons,
don't read them. End of problem.
It is a fact that if want to get the point of your message
across, you first need to draw attention to your message. It
also true the people with no message demand attention. Which
group to put Mike Diana in, I can't say.
David
Tarquin
danh...@home.com said, as she smiled quietly to herself...
Even *after* the conviction? What's the justification given for not
making the information available?
--
carbona not glue
R124c4u2
>Even *after* the conviction? What's the justification given for not
>making the information available?
Since when do lawmakes have to pass laws that make sense??
Carl Fink
>Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka were convicted of Murder in Canada because
>of the films they made, which apparently show young girls being used
>sexually and then killed. Hard for us Canadians to know the exact details,
>since our justice system has put a ban on any information regarding the
>case.
That would only be a snuff film if they were selling these videos.
Several murderers have videotaped their actions.
N Jill Marsh
> In article <x6T44.641$07.1...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com>,
> danh...@home.com said, as she smiled quietly to herself...
> > Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka were convicted of Murder in Canada because
> > of the films they made, which apparently show young girls being used
> > sexually and then killed. Hard for us Canadians to know the exact details,
> > since our justice system has put a ban on any information regarding the
> > case.
> Even *after* the conviction? What's the justification given for not
> making the information available?
The information is available, and has been since the conclusion of the trial.
And as far as I know, Karla Holmolka plead guilty to manslaughter, and
Paul Bernardo was convicted of two counts of first degree murder because
of the abduction, rape and murder of two girls. The films they made were
only evidence.
The publication ban was in effect from around the time of Holmolka's
plea bargain/conviction up to Bernardo's trial. There was quite a space
between the two trials, and the justification given at the time was that
Bernardo may have not received a fair trial had the available evidence at
the time been made public. Critics suggested other reasons.
All the evidence presented at Bernardo's trial was made public as the
trial progressed with one exception. The video portion of the tapes of
the victims' sexual assaults (the murders were not videotaped) were not
shown in open court; only the defendant, the lawyers and the jury saw
them. The audience in court only heard the tapes.
njm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See, here he comes stealing through the undergrowth, his face shining
with the light of pure intelligence. There are no limits to Jeeve's
brain power. He virtually lives on fish.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Poe
>tarquin52 writes:
>
>>Even *after* the conviction? What's the justification given for not
>>making the information available?
>
>Since when do lawmakes have to pass laws that make sense??
In the Q & A session after an artificial intelligence seminar some
years ago (remember when AI was popular? THAT long ago):
Me: Has anyone ever written an AI program for legal applications?
Speaker: No. The law is not a sane system.
- Randy
Mark Brader
> The information is available, and has been since the conclusion of the trial.
> The publication ban was in effect from around the time of Holmolka's
> plea bargain/conviction up to Bernardo's trial. There was quite a space
> between the two trials, and the justification given at the time was that
> Bernardo may have not received a fair trial had the available evidence at
> the time been made public.
In particular, one of the pieces of information that was felt to be
prejudicial and therefore banned was that she *had* pleaded guilty.
We were only allowed to know that she had been convicted. On the
first day. Duh.
I never understood why the two defendants were (scheduled to be) tried
separately anyway. Seemed obvious to me that there should have been one
court case against both, particularly if the result of one was going to be
considered prejudicial to the other, but still that wasn't how they did it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "... trapped in a twisty little maze
m...@vex.net of backslashes ..." -- Steve Summit
My text in this article is in the public domain.
lbo...@worldnet.att.net
Dan Hanson <danh...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Ose44.9522$q7.4...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> I believe the legal definition of pornography is that the image has to
> appeal to 'prurient interests' or something like that. So the Discovery
> channel can show footage of 12-year old naked tribal members, but the
> Playboy channel can't show 12-year old girls in the nude.
>
> It's a fine line, and an arbitrary one. But so is all of pornography
> legislation. Much porn legislation may be unconstitutional, because their
> may be no way to tell if you're breaking the law until a judge interprets
> the result. For instance, is a naturism magazine that shows naked
families
> 'kiddie porn'? I'm willing to bet that 80% of the people to read that
stuff
> do it because it's a legal way to get their jollies looking at naked
> children.
My guess is you'd lose that bet. Sure, some perverts may subscribe to nudist
magazines in hopes of checking a glimpse of a naked child, but not 80% of
the readership. Most of these magazines aren't available on the newstand and
you have to belong to a recognized nudist organization or club to subscribe.
Most clubs won't accept singles as members; you have to have a family or at
least a spouse.
>
> There was a case here in Canada a couple of years ago about a couple who
> were charged with kiddie porn because a photomat employee called the cops
> after developing a bunch of pictures of their naked children. The scenes
> were innocent enough (kids in the bathtub, etc). In the end they were
> aquitted, but it could have gone the other way. And there was no way
those
> parents could know before the actual trial whether or not they were
> committing a crime.
There have been a lot of cases like this. Usually cased by some over anxious
district attorney hoping to make a name for themselves during elections by
taking on the big bad specture of "kiddy porn." After all, they have to keep
us safe from ourselves. But who watches the watchers? I have absolutely no
proof and this is merely my own imagination, but I'm half convinced that the
Jon Benet Ramsey case was mishandled on purpose because of Mr. Ramsey's
kiddy porn connections with some in the Boulder city government.
As stated above, this is just my opinion.....
Les
lbo...@worldnet.att.net
Tim Robinson <bo...@see.sig> wrote in message
news:82t2tq$i58$1...@ionews.ionet.net...
>
> I find all this to be one of the two thorniest moral issues of modern
> society [1]. I find it amazing that technically an 18 year old guy in
>
> [1] The other is the issue of cloning and life extension, but I don't want
> to get into that now.
Just curious where you come down on this?
By the way, I agree that it's a thorny issue, but I happen to support
research in this area.
Another big thorny issue for the next century is euthansia (not sure on the
spelling there). I predict that it will become a hugh political issue as the
baby boomer population ages and they have to first deal with their aged
parents and then themselves. There are a lot of different factors: money--a
large portion of the population being supported by a smaller working
population and elder care increasing in cost, openmindedness--this is the
same generation that experimented with drugs and sex and new math in the
sixties; they may very well want to experiment with alternative "solutions"
to the aging and declining health problem, privacy--the same generation that
doesn't want the government telling women what to do with their bodies isn't
going to want the government telling them they can't kill themselves if they
want.
>
>
>
Dan Hanson
recall correctly.
.
Jake Schmidt
news:831dq9$e9g$1...@cjf-hq.dialup.access.net...
because
> >of the films they made, which apparently show young girls being used
> >sexually and then killed. Hard for us Canadians to know the exact
details,
> >since our justice system has put a ban on any information regarding the
> >case.
>
> Several murderers have videotaped their actions.
I was always under the impression that the sole purpose of the killing had
to be to film it--e.g. I get killed simply because my next-door neighbor
gets his jollies by watching people die on film.
> --
> Carl Fink ca...@dm.net
> I-Con's Science and Technology Guest of Honor in 2000 will be Geoffrey
> A. Landis. See <http://www.iconsf.org> for I-Con information.
--
Jake Schmidt
Remove a "d" to reply...
Dutch Courage
> There was a case here in Canada a couple of years ago about a couple who
> were charged with kiddie porn because a photomat employee called the cops
> after developing a bunch of pictures of their naked children. The scenes
> were innocent enough (kids in the bathtub, etc). In the end they were
> aquitted, but it could have gone the other way. And there was no way
those
> parents could know before the actual trial whether or not they were
> committing a crime.
Well, except there's precedent, and presumably the wording of the statutes in
question.
"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn
human actions, but to understand them" -Spinoza
"The ridiculing and scorn, that's just gravy."-Courage
rob...@bestweb.net
Several years ago, before the Internet became so prominent, it was said that
practically the only commercial purveyor of kid porn in the USA was the
USPS. That's right, provoker agents. The question still remains whether
they produced the material de novo, or only reworked existing material. I'm
sure some sort of statutory exemption applies such that enforcement officers
would be allowed to, not only purvey, but produce the stuff -- but if they
were in fact producing it, that'd prove that the purpose, or at least effect
of such statutes is not to protect the naive and innocent, but to punish the
deviant.
The most blatant example of underage nudity in film I ever saw was a gov't
project thru & thru. It was about 1985. 3 times WNYC-TV, channel 31, the
TV outlet of the Municipal Broadcasting Service, owned by the New York City
gov't, ran an hour compilation video program titled something like "Images
of Children". 3 bits, the first and last of which were very short, and were
probably included to provide an excuse to show the longer one in the middle.
The first video was the only one with creativity. It was some pencil
animation accompanying an apparently candid voice-over by some young kids.
The last was nothing more than ~30 year old home movie of a kid's trip to
the zoo with an accompanying piano track. Nowadays commercial operations
exist to transcribe home movies and supply a music track. Probably
thenadays too.
The middle video was the obvious feature. It was a biographic piece
about a left-wing couple from Cambridge, Mass. over a few years. Some of it
involved their protest marches. Much of it involved their friend's young
children. One scene, ostensibly candid, but I gotta believe it was adult
directed to appear so neatly, consisted of the nude children doing splits
for the camera while hanging from a railing. This was preceded by the boy's
stage-whispering to the girl, or maybe vice versa, a suggestion that they do
their "Penis & Vagina Dance".
At the end the credit was inevitable -- funded by the National Endowment
for the Humanities (or maybe it was the Arts). And this while Ed Meese was
att'y gen'l! Let the private sector try that on TV, and see what'd happen.
Not that I think that sort of thing was harmful to the kids involved, or
that it'd be harmful to any kids watching. It's just the hypocrisy of it
that riles me. If you're making a supposed political statement, especially
from the southpaw side, anything goes, and woe be unto anyone who'd
criticize.
Robert
Rich Clancey
+ Big Iron5 wrote in message <19991210181251...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
+ >Dutch Courage writes:
+ >
+ >
+ >
+ >>>-- the kiddie-porn laws have no
+ >>>exemption for parental consent, or AFAIK, for "redeeming social
+ >>>value."
+ >>
+ >>I -think- there's some sort of caveat for, uh...you know, unprurient
+ stuff.
+ >
+ >The relevant federal statutes provide that the material depict minors in
+ >"sexually explicit activity," defined as follows:
+ >
+ >" actual or simulated -
+ >(A) sexual intercourse,
+ >(B) bestiality;
+ >(C) masturbation;
+ >(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
+ >(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of
+ >any person."
+ >
+ >
+ >This seemingly allows for breast shots so long as the minor is not depicted
+ >masturbating or engaging in some form of intercourse, etc. It is no
+ defense
+ >that the minor was not the one actually doing the deeds, or depicted, so
+ long
+ >as it appears that way.
+ Ant there have been recent moves by our lawmakers to extend this to include
+ the apparent *portrayal of* a minor doing a,b,c..., even if all actual
+ players are adult (or digitally generated!!).
These digitally generated stimuli are precisely what the law
about masturbation is designed to prevent.
The fallacy underneath all of this stuff is equating nudity
with sex.
--
-- rich clancey
Stars twinkle above,
We twinkle below.
r...@world.std.com rcla...@massart.edu
N Jill Marsh
> I wonder how many kiddie-porn afficianados have infiltrated the nudist
> ranks? Has it been a documented problem?
There's usually a flame war or ten going on about this over in rec.nude.
Opinions vary, from "naturists have no hangups, the kids are more
confident, etc. we have no paeds" to " all are paeds."
There have certainly been some cases of individuals hiding behind the
nudist name in order to promote ch*ld p*rn*gr*phy. There have certainly
been instances of nudist resorts not being as agressive as they should be
when it comes to identification and prosecution of paedophiles. Is it
higher than in the general population? within the Boy Scouts? within the
church? Nobody knows. Unfortunately the individuals I have seen who
claim to be able to answer this question all have their own agendas; I
have never seen a well researched sensible answer to this question, and I have
looked.
N Jill Marsh
> >
> >I never understood why the two defendants were (scheduled to be) tried
> >separately anyway. Seemed obvious to me that there should have been one
> >court case against both, particularly if the result of one was going to be
> >considered prejudicial to the other, but still that wasn't how they did it.
Recall that Paul Bernardo wasn't really apprehended due to excellence in
police work. (Of course, if adequate resources had been applied to the
Scarborough Rapist cases, he would have been spending life in the clink
before he ever met the two girls he killed.) He was finally picked up
because he beat the crap out of his partner, who ratted him out. At the
time of Karla Holmolka's plea bargain, the authorities had no idea that the
videotapes existed, their murder case against Bernardo was heavily
dependant upon her testimony. Her plea bargain prevented any other charges
being laid against her in connection with her and her husband's activites.
The tapes were acquired some time after. If they had been found during
the original searches, I suspect that the murder charges would have gone
forward against both individuals. Charges against Paul Bernardo's
original lawyer, Ken Murray, who did not turn the tapes over to the
authorities for months, are finally proceeding.
nj "ethical lawyers?" m
Rich Clancey
+ Tim Robinson <bo...@see.sig> wrote in message
+ news:82t2tq$i58$1...@ionews.ionet.net...
+ >
+ > I find all this to be one of the two thorniest moral issues of modern
+ > society [1]. I find it amazing that technically an 18 year old guy in
+ >
+ > [1] The other is the issue of cloning and life extension, but I don't want
+ > to get into that now.
+ Just curious where you come down on this?
+ By the way, I agree that it's a thorny issue, but I happen to support
+ research in this area.
+ Another big thorny issue for the next century is euthansia (not sure on the
+ spelling there). I predict that it will become a hugh political issue as the
+ baby boomer population ages and they have to first deal with their aged
+ parents and then themselves. There are a lot of different factors: money--a
+ large portion of the population being supported by a smaller working
+ population and elder care increasing in cost, openmindedness--this is the
+ same generation that experimented with drugs and sex and new math in the
+ sixties; they may very well want to experiment with alternative "solutions"
+ to the aging and declining health problem, privacy--the same generation that
+ doesn't want the government telling women what to do with their bodies isn't
+ going to want the government telling them they can't kill themselves if they
+ want.
Or by extension, that they can't kill their useless expensive
old relatives who are eating up the savings in medical costs...
rob...@bestweb.net
>I once had a guy invite me out to some nudist thingie. He started
>off with the usual talk about it being so natural and liberating,
>etc. (And I'm not saying it isn't, although when I've been nude in
>public it's usually been followed by a very unnatural and
>unliberating hangover.) Then he started talking about how much he
>and his ex-wife used to enjoy it. Then he asked me if I thought it
>was weird that his 16 year old twin daughters had recently shaved
>their pubes into heart-shaped designs. Because he thought it
>looked a little weird. Hrm. *click*
>(I would have hung up sooner, but I was curious.
I was going to answer just with some wisecrack, but I gotta ask what you
mean by the above? I mean, what were YOU thinking?
OK, here's the wise crack:
>I'm also the type who keeps obscene callers on
>the line and asks questions.)
So start an answering service for them.
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
wrote:
> These digitally generated stimuli are precisely what the law
>about masturbation is designed to prevent.
Isn't digitally generated stimuli one definition of masturbation?
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information,
and information on which artists do and do not want their
work posted!
http://home.icubed.net/starchsr/table.htm
Address munged for the inconvienence of spammers:
My address is starchsr <at> icubed dot net
Lars Eighner
In our last episode <mMl54.2854$jC1.3...@newshog.newsread.com>,
the lovely and talented rob...@bestweb.net broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
|You can't beat gov't for this sort of thing.
|
|Several years ago, before the Internet became so prominent, it was said that
|practically the only commercial purveyor of kid porn in the USA was the
|USPS. That's right, provoker agents.
Depends upon what you mean by "commercial" and "kid porn." There
never was much -- if any -- little kiddie porn produced by
above-ground, commercial porn producers in the US. There was some
stuff imported from countries where it was legal to make it
and sometimes a model with a fake ID would get into a porn flick
while a tad shy of 18 years of age. Basically the margins on
ordinary porn are so high that producers, distributors, etc.
never found it economically advantageous to serve such a small
market segment when doing so would cause a lot of ill-will.
|The question still remains whether
|they produced the material de novo, or only reworked existing material.
They use stuff seized from international shipments and stuff
produced by "private collectors" that they bust. Since they
never actually have to deliver stuff in commercial quantities,
they can get by with a smallish inventory which they reuse.
|I'm sure some sort of statutory exemption applies such that enforcement officers
|would be allowed to, not only purvey, but produce the stuff -- but if they
|were in fact producing it, that'd prove that the purpose, or at least effect
|of such statutes is not to protect the naive and innocent, but to punish the
|deviant.
Some of their stings involve commissioning people to make such
films. I don't know whether they actually let them start
production before they bust them.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/
bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstore/
I've found Jesus. He was behind the sofa the whole time.
Seanette Blaylock
<starch...@my.sig> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:51:04 GMT, r...@world.std.com (Rich Clancey)
>wrote:
>> These digitally generated stimuli are precisely what the law
>>about masturbation is designed to prevent.
>Isn't digitally generated stimuli one definition of masturbation?
[choke] OW!!! [attempting to dislodge partially-chewed potato chips
from sinuses]
We have GOTTA start using C&C warnings in here!
--
Seanette Blaylock
Reply to sean...@spammers.drop.dead.impulse.net
[make obvious correction]
Bear
"StarChaser " wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:51:04 GMT, r...@world.std.com (Rich Clancey)
> wrote:
>
> > These digitally generated stimuli are precisely what the law
> >about masturbation is designed to prevent.
>
> Isn't digitally generated stimuli one definition of masturbation?
Wouldn't that digitality manipulation be a *response* to stimuli, not
the stimuli?
--
Bear
Support the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide:
http://www.circus.com/nodhmo/
Big David
news:19991214013202...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> Dan Hanson Mmmmbopped:
>
> > There was a case here in Canada a couple of years ago about a couple
who were charged with kiddie porn because a photomat employee called the
cops after developing a bunch of pictures of their naked children. The
scenes were innocent enough (kids in the bathtub, etc). In the end they
were aquitted, but it could have gone the other way. And there was no way
those parents could know before the actual trial whether or not they were
committing a crime.
>
> Well, except there's precedent, and presumably the wording of the
statutes in question.
Except that precedent and the wording of statutes doesn't protect anyone
from the overzealousness of some idiot DA or U.S. Attorney trying to
"protect the children". Dan is right. The parents have no way of knowing
whether their completely innocent and not intended to be published picture
of Junior in the tub will be found obscene and against the law. Common
sense seems to get thrown out the window when it comes to this stuff. Even
cartoon depictions of underage persons which appeal to purient interests
are illegal under federal law. Along with "hate crimes", that is the
thought police at its very worst. Those ideas are abhorrent to the
constitution of the U.S.
Big David
"Commit a little mortal sin. It's good for your soul."
To reply, remove spambait
lbo...@worldnet.att.net
Sophelyn <soph...@fzbzet.zet> wrote in message
news:d2JWOGgjurX7yp...@4ax.com...
> <lbo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > My guess is you'd lose that bet. Sure, some perverts may subscribe to
nudist
> > magazines in hopes of checking a glimpse of a naked child, but not 80%
of
> > the readership. Most of these magazines aren't available on the newstand
and
> > you have to belong to a recognized nudist organization or club to
subscribe.
> > Most clubs won't accept singles as members; you have to have a family or
at
> > least a spouse.
>
<snip>
> I wonder how many kiddie-porn afficianados have infiltrated the nudist
> ranks? Has it been a documented problem?
I think it has been; most clubs have a no-photographs policy.
>
> Soph
Llorta
>I wonder how many kiddie-porn afficianados have infiltrated the nudist
>ranks? Has it been a documented problem?
Here's a URL that deals with the issue:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/
motion added to reduce spam
>>about masturbation is designed to prevent.
>
>Isn't digitally generated stimuli one definition of masturbation?
You got it and yet, you didn't.
__________________
Stephen
http://stephen.fathom.org
Satellite Hunting 2.0.0 visible satellite pass prediction shareware available
for download at
http://stephen.fathom.org/sathunt.html
Dutch Courage
> If someone called to take a survey, I'd
>probably assume they were telemarketing scum and ask to be put on the
>"do not call" list and hang up.
Market researchers do not maintain "do not call" lists, and in fact may call
you at any and all hours.
rob...@bestweb.net
>Well, I was thinking, "Heh. Lamer. This is a stupid pickup line.
>I've already said 'no thank you' about ten times now. Oh well, I've
>nothing to do at the moment, let's see what he says next." Then
>came the remark about his daughters and I hung up.
>In other words, I was curious about where he was going with his lame
>pitch for a date at the ole nudist ranch. I was not curious about
>his sicker thoughts, which hadn't occured yet.
In other words, you thought it was fiction?
Reminds me of troubles I've had, from the other side. I had a friend once
try to advise me on flirting when she heard me asking for info from someone
else re urogenital irritation from soaps. I had to explain to her that I'd
been asking the questions seriously.
Robert
Dan Hanson
he saw it'.
Sorry, but it's an absolute fact that in marginal cases (such as nude
children in family pictures), it is very difficult to know if what you are
having developed will be defined as 'pornography' until you go to trial.
Big Iron5
>Or a supreme court judge, who couldn't define pornography but 'knew it when
>he saw it'.
Potter Stewart, FTR, and it's obscenity, not pornography(the former being
bereft of current First Amendment protection). My recollection is that he was
being a bit facetious.
Dana Carpender
rob...@bestweb.net wrote:
You jest, but I worked at an answering service for quite a while in the
early/mid 80s, and trust me, the obscene phone jerks already have figured
out that if they call a doctor, a locksmith, or an HVAC guy in the middle of
the night, they'll get a woman. (For the most part. I've known men who
worked answering service, but not a lot of them, and we never had a guy work
the graveyard shift -- at $4/hr.) I learned to be mean to them.
Had one guy call and tell me he had his big, hard throbbing c*** in his
hand, and I replied in my most bored tone, "No you don't. If you could get
it up, you wouldn't bother calling women on the phone." *He* hung up on
*me*. Satisfying.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Alas, Babylon
telemarketers like to skirt the issue & try to convince you they are.
True market researchers (yes, I am one) rely on telephone interviews
for some data collection. We also use personal interivews,
door-to-door interviews, mail surveys, consumer panels, etc to collect
data. I, myself, am not connected to the data collection end, but the
consulting portion.
This data that market researchers gather is reported in aggregate to
clients for the purposes of identifying and tracking opinions about
products and services and the advertising used to sell them.
Market researchers never, under any circumstances sell anything or
provide respondents' names to clients for the purposes of selling.
The large market research list companies maintain their lists for
research purposes and if you are unfamiliar to them, will often
request to see the questionnaire you are going to use or ask you to
sign something that says you will not telemarket.
There are also lots and lots of list companies that are set up
specifically for telemarketing/direct mail marketing and they will
sell their lists to anyone who wants to buy them.
I get call after call and stuff in the mail all the time "saying" it
is market research. I can spot the telemarketers a mile off. I wish
others could, too, so we market researcher people would not run into
respondents who are interview-weary due to be bombarded by sales
spiels in the guise of research.
Oh...and by the way...political campaigns are notorious for calling
potential voters and claiming to be market researchers when, in fact,
they are shilling for a candidate. When I chastised an interviewer
once for such deception, he came up with the old, "look, lady, I just
work here."
And there...I am off my soapbox.
Gloryon
On 15 Dec 1999 01:55:32 GMT, hpstr...@aol.commissar (Dutch Courage)
wrote:
Bossman
"Alas, Babylon" wrote:
>
> Market researchers ARE NOT telemarketers, no matter how much some
> telemarketers like to skirt the issue & try to convince you they are.
Well, yes and no...
You gave us all the 'no' reasons. Fine, you are someone different we
still don't like calling us.
You are guilty of the following.
Your calls are unsolicited.
Rarely are you identified via caller ID.
Market researchers misrepresent *how long the interview will take*.
Since you don't identify who you represent (I guess I can understand
that, but explain?) there is no way for us to conclude if you are
legitimate or not.
Last week we let the caller ID pile up two days worth of numbers.
The tally: 38 Unknown (no number) 4 with numbers, all known to us.
Granted, we were not home for all of those. Nonetheless, that is a bunch
of unsolicited activity in my domicile.
And you expect me to pick up the phone and find out that 'unknown' is
legit?
Try paying me.
Michael
Please direct e-mail to both of the following addresses :
mitc...@image-link.com
mitc...@att.net
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Dutch Courage
>My Mom (who died one year ago today) was once flashed in downtown Chicago by
>a
>person (I hesitate to say "man" in this case) who waved it at her and asked
>"Know what this is lady?" She glanced over nonchalantly, and replied, "Oh
>yeah.
>Looks kinda like a man's penis, only a lot smaller!" The turtle almost
>immediately went back indoors.
>
>-- Geno
I'm afraid I'm going to have to bust you, Geno; that never happened. It has
espirit de l'escalier written all over it, and plus it's obvious.
N Jill Marsh
Distribution:
Llorta (all...@yahoo.com) wrote:
Well, it certainly gives one person's point fo view. I would disagree
that it attempts to deal with the issue. Heck, it doesn't even deal with
Nikki's (the author's) issues.
njm
StarChaser <Anti spam feature in address.>
reduce spam) wrote:
>>> These digitally generated stimuli are precisely what the law
>>>about masturbation is designed to prevent.
>>
>>Isn't digitally generated stimuli one definition of masturbation?
>--StarChaser
>
>You got it and yet, you didn't.
I got it, I just thought it was funnier the other way...
Alas, Babylon
interviewing of any sort. Companies that actually do the interviewing
may choose to allow caller ID functions...I know a lot of them, do,
because I know what companies call me by looking at their numbers.
Secondly, you are under no obligation to take any unsolicited call (or
even a solicitedone. for that matter). I have no qualms about
screening or hanging up, nor should you. I, myself, have caller ID
blocking engaged on my phone so NO ONE knows I am calling...and that
is on the personal calls. All my biz calls are identified.
You are one of a growing number of people who get royally pissed off
at the intrusion, and as I said, if the telemarketers did not abuse
the phone lines, the rarity with which you would get mkt rsch calls
would be negligible, and perhaps you would be willing to share your
opinions about something rather than rail at your caller ID listing.
Any study I contract an interviewing service to conduct is given the
timing of the interview. If the length of interview is inordinate, an
honorarium, or "incentive" as it is called in the business, is
offered. This is true for phone as well as in personal interviews. A
company that lies to respondents about the length of interview risks
respondents breaking off in mid-interview...too expensive to do too
often. It is better to be honest & the respondent is likely to be more
willing to chat.
Why are projects' sponsors not identified? Well...if I were calling to
ask you which car you felt was the safest on the road and I told you
upfront I was from Ford (Or Volvo, or GM, etc), that might influence
your answers, so the idea is to make all questioning neutral in tone &
maintain anonymity. Such is not true in all cases. I do a lot of work
for hospitals who do patient satisfaction studies to find out how
discharged patients feel about the care they received in the hosptial
Everything is identified in such a case, and is identified in many
other types of research, too, such as a manufacturer wanting to find
out if the new widget that was installed in you whatsis makes you
happier than the old widget did. Maybe if the new one does, they will
continue with it at a savings to them & joy to you. If not, the old
design may be put back. It's cheaper to keep a current customer happy
than to find a new one.
I rather doubt that your 38 weekend unidentified calls were market
research...much more likely telemarketing. YOu see, there just aren't
that many true market research projects operating at one weeked that
would randomly or by list select YOU 38 times. I mean...with odds like
that, I'd buy a lottery ticket. I'm sure you're terrific, but unique?
Nah.
Ain't no one forcin' you to answer questions. Say no to a legitimate
interviewer & you will not get the pushy, obnoxious blithering idiot
at the other end insisting that s/he alone has something to tell you
that will change your life. Likely as not, you'll get a thank you and
good bye.
Gloryon
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:14:23 -0500, Bossman <mitc...@image-link.com>
wrote:
Gary S. Callison
: Had one guy call and tell me he had his big, hard throbbing c*** in his
: hand, and I replied in my most bored tone, "No you don't. If you could
: get it up, you wouldn't bother calling women on the phone." *He* hung
: up on *me*. Satisfying.
One of my friends, a stage magician with a relatively demented sense of
humor, has an idea that I like so much I'm starting to use it: When a
telemarketer calls, let them get out their initial speech, tell you about
their product, and then answer "WILL IT HELP ME TO KILL MORE PEOPLE?" in a
really goofy voice.
I like it. I like it, it's good.
--
Huey
Help me to kill more people!
Dana Carpender
"Gary S. Callison" wrote:
I like it, too!
A friend fell victim, 8 years back, to a very serious, debilitating illness,
leaving him with little-to-no income and unpaid bills. He got pretty tired of
collection agents hounding him, so he took to saying stuff like, "Oh, honey --
you sound so tense! Bet it's been way too long since you had a big, hard d***
up your a**." They'd get all upset, and say, "You can't talk to me like
that!" He say, "Uh-uh, honey. *You* called *me* -- I can say anything I want
to. If you'd like to hear more, just call back tomorrow around the same time
-- I'll be here!"
It wasn't long till there wasn't a single collection agent willing to deal
with him, and the calls stopped. He did, eventually, pay off his bills, BTW.
Bossman
"Alas, Babylon" wrote:
> Ain't no one forcin' you to answer questions. Say no to a legitimate
> interviewer & you will not get the pushy, obnoxious blithering idiot
> at the other end insisting that s/he alone has something to tell you
> that will change your life. Likely as not, you'll get a thank you and
> good bye.
Again your business shares enough bad traits with the telemarketer for
me to ignore you. How many other do not accept all unidentified callers
on caller ID?
Calling people at random without identification is not going to get you
anyone with caller ID.
Seems to me that you are headed for slimmer times as caller ID becomes
more popular. Few will dare find out if the *unavailable* caller is
you or the solicitors.
For me it doesn't matter. Unknown=Unsolicited=bothersome. I'll take the
odds that one in a thousand is worth a pick-up of the phone. The final
refuge for the ignored is my answering machine. If it is really
good/important/necessary...I'll find out.
Side thought:
How does this effect the data? Might the fact act that caller ID folks
aren't included in a survey influence the result?
Dutch Courage
>Dutch Courage <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote in message
>news:19991214013202...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
>> Dan Hanson Mmmmbopped:
>>
>> > There was a case here in Canada a couple of years ago about a couple
>who were charged with kiddie porn because a photomat employee called the
>cops after developing a bunch of pictures of their naked children. The
>scenes were innocent enough (kids in the bathtub, etc). In the end they
>were aquitted, but it could have gone the other way. And there was no way
>those parents could know before the actual trial whether or not they were
>committing a crime.
>>
>> Well, except there's precedent, and presumably the wording of the
>statutes in question.
>
>Except that precedent and the wording of statutes doesn't protect anyone
>from the overzealousness of some idiot DA or U.S. Attorney trying to
>"protect the children".
Sorry guys, it doesn't brek my heart the DoJ or whoever is tough on kiddie
porn.
> Dan is right.
I'm unconvinced.
> The parents have no way of knowing
>whether their completely innocent and not intended to be published picture
>of Junior in the tub will be found obscene and against the law.
Can you find even one example of such a thing happening?
> Even
>cartoon depictions of underage persons which appeal to purient interests
>are illegal under federal law.
Well, that's a little much.
> Along with "hate crimes", that is the
>thought police at its very worst.
Right, because we certainly don't make other crimes aggravated based on
circumstance and intent.
> Those ideas are abhorrent to the
>constitution of the U.S.
Certain portions of the Constitiution constitute (woo woo!) hate crime.
Dutch "Ironsides" Courage
N Jill Marsh
> Market researchers ARE NOT telemarketers, no matter how much some
> telemarketers like to skirt the issue & try to convince you they are.
But both are telephone solicitors, and it is the solicitation, not the
intention, that is so incredibly annoying.
nj"don't skirt the issus that they are both a pain in the butt"m
Big Iron5
>Along with "hate crimes", that is the
>thought police at its very worst. Those ideas are abhorrent to the
>constitution of the U.S.
Oh, please -- there's noting remotely resembling "thought police" (much less
"at its worst") in properly drafted "hate crime" laws (which simply enhance
punishment for conduct that is already criminal). The law has always taken the
criminal's state of mind into account in determining an appropriate punishment.
Not that these laws are remotely any kind of panacea -- they're mostly
symbolic. But they're not unconstitutional.
Tarquin
njm...@chat.carleton.ca said, as she smiled quietly to herself...
> Alas, Babylon (glo...@simi.com) wrote:
>
> > Market researchers ARE NOT telemarketers, no matter how much some
> > telemarketers like to skirt the issue & try to convince you they are.
>
> But both are telephone solicitors, and it is the solicitation, not the
> intention, that is so incredibly annoying.
The roommate of a friend of mine used to have some sort of managerial
position with a telemarketing firm. He explained that, quite often, the
"researchers" who call you with minor questions like "does anyone in your
family wear glasses?" or "how often do you get your hair cut?" are not
actually conducting any sort of scientific study, but merely collecting
the phone numbers of people who are willing to sit and chat with
strangers on the phone. The phone numbers of callers who respond are, in
turn, sold in lists to companies that actually intend to make a sales
pitch. The reason that you have that few seconds of dead silence just
before the telemarketer/researcher begins to speak is that they're
connected to a computer that dials more-or-less randomly in search of
live numbers with people at the other end. When you answer, it takes a
few seconds for the computer to shift the call to a worker, who is only
reading off a script on a terminal. According to the guy I spoke to, you
can tell a sucker almost from the second word. Basically, people who
aren't going to take the bait hang up immediately. The first question the
"researcher" always asks is "how are you doing today" - anyone who
answers "fine" is usually going to follow through on the rest of the
scam. The thing that sucked for him, and I would think this has changed
since then, was that the computer didn't keep track of what number it had
dialed, so that the "researcher" would always have to ask the respondent
was his/her phone number was.
My friend, who has a sick sense of humor, likes to sit on the phone with
those callers, sometimes for ten minutes or more, and torture them. He
claims to have conversations where he tells them all about what he had
for breakfast, how he hates his job etc., but always holds back from
giving exactly the information or answers they want. He just teases them
and acts mildly interested while they get frustrated. Personally, I feel
sorry for telemarketers. I know it's a major source of income for a lot
of depressed communities - it's supposed to be one of the largest
industries in North Dakota. I do them a favor and hang up whenever I get
that two-second delay.
--
carbona not glue
Tarquin
bigi...@aol.com said, as she smiled quietly to herself...
They're also lacking in certain states where hate crimes are more
frequently committed. Indiana comes to mind - I happen to know a law
professor who specializes in "hate crime" law. He worked extensively on
the case in Chicago a few years ago where a couple of White high-school
kids from Bridgeport beat-up a Black teenager, causing him severe head
injuries which left him mentally incapacitated. There were all kinds of
circumstances surrounding the beating that suggested racial hatred as a
motive, and the jury agreed for at least one of the kids (I think the
others may have plea-bargained, but I can't remember). Anyway, this
professor explained that, in Indiana, the crime could never have been
prosecuted as such. The reason is not so much that Indiana legislators
are racists, but that "hate crimes" occurs so frequently that, if they
were to begin classifying cases as such, statistically they'd probably
lead the nation in "hate crime" attacks. There's just no way for them to
approach the issue lightly.
--
carbona not glue
Tarquin
> :> The parents have no way of knowing
> :>whether their completely innocent and not intended to be published picture
> :>of Junior in the tub will be found obscene and against the law.
>
> : Can you find even one example of such a thing happening?
>
> her naked child (~3 or 4 years old) in blatantly non-sexual context (e.g.
> playing in a backyard pool or some such). Takes photos to be developed;
> photo store calls police and has mother arrested.
What was the verdict?
--
carbona not glue
Dutch Courage
>Dutch Courage <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote:
>:> The parents have no way of knowing
>:>whether their completely innocent and not intended to be published picture
>:>of Junior in the tub will be found obscene and against the law.
>
>: Can you find even one example of such a thing happening?
>
>Several years ago in Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Art Student takes picture of
>her naked child (~3 or 4 years old) in blatantly non-sexual context (e.g.
>playing in a backyard pool or some such). Takes photos to be developed;
>photo store calls police and has mother arrested.
Great. Do you have a name, a date, an authoritive cite, and whether she was
charged with, let alone convicted of, producing and distributing child
pornography?
World of difference among the answers to that last one.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> Oh, please -- there's noting remotely resembling "thought police" (much less
> "at its worst") in properly drafted "hate crime" laws (which simply enhance
> punishment for conduct that is already criminal). The law has always taken the
> criminal's state of mind into account in determining an appropriate punishment.
The significance of a criminal's state of mind is whether he had
formed the intent to commit a crime. It was whether he was forming
forbidden thoughts ("I don't like people in wheelchairs.") or merely
distasteful one ("I don't like that guy over there.")
I would like to changing committing a crime with any political purpose to
be a more serious crime. Give those Seattle rioters the chair!
Actually, I think they hang in Washington state. Even better...
M.
James Gifford
> The reason that you have that few seconds of dead silence just
> before the telemarketer/researcher begins to speak is that they're
> connected to a computer that dials more-or-less randomly in search of
> live numbers with people at the other end. When you answer, it takes a
During a era when I was plagued with these sorts of calls, I learned to
pick up the phone and not say anything. If there was dead, utter silence
for a few seconds, I'd hang up. Even the quietest person calling has
some background noise and will say something (or make a sound of some
sort) after a second or two of no response. If it's dead silent, it's an
autodialer waiting for a "grunt" to transfer the call to an agent.
(That's what it's called, incidentally-- grunt detection.)
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gif...@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Robert Heinlein FAQ |
| and information on "Robert A. Heinlein: A Reader's Companion" |
Dana Carpender
Tarquin wrote:
> In article <19991216132220...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
> bigi...@aol.com said, as she smiled quietly to herself...
> > Debokeno writes:
> >
> >
> > >Along with "hate crimes", that is the
> > >thought police at its very worst. Those ideas are abhorrent to the
> > >constitution of the U.S.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh, please -- there's noting remotely resembling "thought police" (much less
> > "at its worst") in properly drafted "hate crime" laws (which simply enhance
> > punishment for conduct that is already criminal). The law has always taken the
> > criminal's state of mind into account in determining an appropriate punishment.
> >
> > Not that these laws are remotely any kind of panacea -- they're mostly
> > symbolic. But they're not unconstitutional.
>
> They're also lacking in certain states where hate crimes are more
> frequently committed. Indiana comes to mind - I happen to know a law
> professor who specializes in "hate crime" law. He worked extensively on
> the case in Chicago a few years ago where a couple of White high-school
> kids from Bridgeport beat-up a Black teenager, causing him severe head
> injuries which left him mentally incapacitated. There were all kinds of
> circumstances surrounding the beating that suggested racial hatred as a
> motive, and the jury agreed for at least one of the kids (I think the
> others may have plea-bargained, but I can't remember). Anyway, this
> professor explained that, in Indiana, the crime could never have been
> prosecuted as such. The reason is not so much that Indiana legislators
> are racists, but that "hate crimes" occurs so frequently that, if they
> were to begin classifying cases as such, statistically they'd probably
> lead the nation in "hate crime" attacks. There's just no way for them to
> approach the issue lightly.
>
We do have a problem, no question about it. However, I am glad to pass on, from the
Intelligence Report of the Southern Poverty Law Center, that the latest Klan rally in
Corydon IN drew a big 12 people.
Still, I wouldn't want to be black here. Or Jewish. Or Asian. Or at least, I
wouldn't want to be any of those things outside of Bloomington, which, being a major
University town, is probably the most diverse town for a hundred miles in any
direction.
Tarquin
> I would like to changing committing a crime with any political purpose to
> be a more serious crime. Give those Seattle rioters the chair!
For some stupid reason, lawmakers seems to think that racial and ethnic
minorities are more frequently singled out for violent persecution than
free trade advocates. Go figure.
--
carbona not glue
Big Iron5
>:> The parents have no way of knowing
>:>whether their completely innocent and not intended to be published picture
>:>of Junior in the tub will be found obscene and against the law.
>
>: Can you find even one example of such a thing happening?
>
>Several years ago in Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Art Student takes picture of
>her naked child (~3 or 4 years old) in blatantly non-sexual context (e.g.
>playing in a backyard pool or some such). Takes photos to be developed;
>photo store calls police and has mother arrested.
>
I recall that case. The woman was never prosecuted, so this isn't a case where
the innocent photo was found to be obscene and against the law. It's a case of
an overzealous store.
Big Iron5
>> Oh, please -- there's noting remotely resembling "thought police" (much
>less
>> "at its worst") in properly drafted "hate crime" laws (which simply enhance
>> punishment for conduct that is already criminal). The law has always taken
>the
>> criminal's state of mind into account in determining an appropriate
>punishment.
>
>The significance of a criminal's state of mind is whether he had
>formed the intent to commit a crime.
That is not the only aspect of the criminal's state of mind that the law has
traditionally taken into consideration. What you are describing is the state
of mind generally required to be proved as an element of the crime (including
hate crimes). In sentencing, however, a broad range of factor are taken into
consideration, chief among them the maliciousness of the behavior. Being
motivated by hatred for blacks or homosexuals (e.g.) is simply a particular
form of maliciousness.
> It was whether he was forming
>forbidden thoughts ("I don't like people in wheelchairs.") or merely
>distasteful one ("I don't like that guy over there.")
Huh?
>I would like to changing committing a crime with any political purpose to
>be a more serious crime. Give those Seattle rioters the chair!
If someone committed a crime with the intent to interfere with someone's
exercise of political freedom, I would have no problem treating that more
seriously.
>Actually, I think they hang in Washington state. Even better...
Of course, that would be unconstitutional.
Tarquin
> wrote:
>
> >Scratchie Agitat...@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> >>Dutch Courage <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote:
> >>:>whether their completely innocent and not intended to be published picture
> >>:>of Junior in the tub will be found obscene and against the law.
> >>
> >>: Can you find even one example of such a thing happening?
> >>
> >>Several years ago in Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Art Student takes picture of
> >>her naked child (~3 or 4 years old) in blatantly non-sexual context (e.g.
> >>playing in a backyard pool or some such). Takes photos to be developed;
> >>photo store calls police and has mother arrested.
> >
> >charged with, let alone convicted of, producing and distributing child
> >pornography?
> >
> > World of difference among the answers to that last one.
> >
>
> to the question? The original question didn't mention producing and
> distributing child pornography... just that the picture might be found
> obscene and against the law.
And photo shops and cops can't *find* anyone *guilty* of anything - see,
we have courts and such that do that type of thing in the U.S. - so the
question is still relevant.
--
carbona not glue
Big Iron5
>>>:> The parents have no way of knowing
>>>:>whether their completely innocent and not intended to be published
>picture
>>>:>of Junior in the tub will be found obscene and against the law.
>>>
>>>: Can you find even one example of such a thing happening?
>>>
>>>Several years ago in Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Art Student takes picture of
>>>her naked child (~3 or 4 years old) in blatantly non-sexual context (e.g.
>>>playing in a backyard pool or some such). Takes photos to be developed;
>>>photo store calls police and has mother arrested.
>>
>> Great. Do you have a name, a date, an authoritive cite, and whether she was
>>charged with, let alone convicted of, producing and distributing child
>>pornography?
>>
>> World of difference among the answers to that last one.
>>
>
>And if he jumps through that hoop, will you add still more qualifiers
>to the question? The original question didn't mention producing and
>distributing child pornography... just that the picture might be found
>obscene and against the law.
>
I don't think that adds any real qualifiers -- if the person is never charged
(much less convicted), by definition that means that the photo was not found to
be obscene and unlawful.
Shawn Wilson
"Big Iron5" <bigi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991216132220...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
> Oh, please -- there's noting remotely resembling "thought police" (much
less
> "at its worst") in properly drafted "hate crime" laws (which simply
enhance
> punishment for conduct that is already criminal).
Yes, there is. Hate crime laws exist ONLY to put people in jail for what
they were THINKING. Hell, they're called 'hate' crimes for a reason, and
that reason is to criminalize a state of mind.
Bossman
We do it all the time. We create a special sub category of crime. A rape
is not prosecuted as an assault. Do you have a problem with the
'thought' behind that 'type' of assault?
They are a type of civil rights violation. Hate, an emotional state is
not relevant---pick a different name. We don't care how
mad/stupid/strange you get. Keep it at home.
They are used to attach 'greater or guaranteed penalty' to crimes, that
in themselves are not seen as violating another persons rights. But you
probably don't believe that there are crimes against a person's civil
rights?
Vandalism, not usually a felony may deserve a greater penalty if the
motivation, intent is greater than that of a traditional prank.
Shawn Wilson
"Bossman" <mitc...@image-link.com> wrote in message
news:385952A2...@image-link.com...
> > Yes, there is. Hate crime laws exist ONLY to put people in jail for
what
> > they were THINKING. Hell, they're called 'hate' crimes for a reason,
and
> > that reason is to criminalize a state of mind.
>
> We do it all the time. We create a special sub category of crime. A rape
> is not prosecuted as an assault. Do you have a problem with the
> 'thought' behind that 'type' of assault?
Rape is an overtly different act than ordinary assault.
Dutch Courage
>On 16 Dec 1999 18:54:22 GMT, hpstr...@aol.commissar (Dutch Courage)
>wrote:
>
>>Scratchie Agitat...@yahoo.com writes:
>>
>>>Dutch Courage <hpstr...@aol.commissar> wrote:
>>>:> The parents have no way of knowing
>>>:>whether their completely innocent and not intended to be published
>picture
>>>:>of Junior in the tub will be found obscene and against the law.
>>>
>>>: Can you find even one example of such a thing happening?
>>>
>>>Several years ago in Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Art Student takes picture of
>>>her naked child (~3 or 4 years old) in blatantly non-sexual context (e.g.
>>>playing in a backyard pool or some such). Takes photos to be developed;
>>>photo store calls police and has mother arrested.
>>
>> Great. Do you have a name, a date, an authoritive cite, and whether she was
>>charged with, let alone convicted of, producing and distributing child
>>pornography?
>>
>> World of difference among the answers to that last one.
>>
>
>And if he jumps through that hoop, will you add still more qualifiers
>to the question?
Nah, he'll have answered my original statement, and to the affirmative.
> The original question didn't mention producing and
>distributing child pornography.
I think it kinda did, what with the obscene and against the law.
>.. just that the picture might be found
>obscene and against the law.
I have the most sincere doubt that any parent with photos of their naked kid
splashing around in the tub was ever found guilty of producing and distributing
child pornography, and I'm only a little less skeptical anyone was ever
indicted, and you can see my hierarchy of doubt as to even "charged" and then
up to arrested.
Thus:
I believe people have been reported to the police for having innocuous
pictures of their naked children, and had to go discuss this with the cops.
I wonder if anyone has actually been arrested; handcuffed, rights read, put in
a patrol car, taken downtown, and finger printed.
I am suspicous that any such actions made it past a grand jury
I seriously doubt anyone has ever been found guilty of whatnot and the other
thing for having naked pictures of the kiddos splashing around in the tub, what
have you.
Prove my doubts inaccurate on the last two, and you can do the "Smarter than
Dutch's gut" victory dance.
Show me the second, and I'll shrug and say "it's a funny ol' world sometimes."
I don't even think there's anything terribly wrong about the first one.
And that's how we do it, if you want to play "Match wits with Dutch."
Otherwise, Ward, you get the wang-dang-ding-a-lang, right down your throat.
Dutch "I'm just a cosmic criminal, Yippie-ki-yi-yay!" Courage.
Big Iron5
>> Oh, please -- there's noting remotely resembling "thought police" (much
>less
>> "at its worst") in properly drafted "hate crime" laws (which simply
>enhance
>> punishment for conduct that is already criminal).
>
>
>Yes, there is. Hate crime laws exist ONLY to put people in jail for what
>they were THINKING.
No, Shawn -- you are, quite simply, in error here. The laws I am referring to
do not define new elements of any crime, but instead add a particular invidious
animus as an aggravating factor in sentencing. You can think (and voice) all
the bad thoughts you want, as long as you don't act on them.
In fact, as I mentioned, hate crime laws are largely symbolic -- but there can
be value in symbolism, and there is some in this case.
> Hell, they're called 'hate' crimes for a reason, and
>that reason is to criminalize a state of mind.
Wrong, in fact -- while the purpose is certainly to stigmatize invidious
discrimination, it is the actions that are criminalized, not the thoughts.
These actions are criminal regardless of the motivation. Motivation, though,
has always been relevant to sentencing.
Again, these laws aren't some crucial component without which our society will
crumble. They're no big deal one way or another, as far as I'm concerned, and
some laws certainly could tread upon First Amendment principles. Hate speech
laws, certainly, are another matter entirely.
Big Iron5
>>> Oh, please -- there's noting remotely resembling "thought police" (much
>less
>>> "at its worst") in properly drafted "hate crime" laws (which simply
>enhance
>>> punishment for conduct that is already criminal). The law has always
>taken the
>>> criminal's state of mind into account in determining an appropriate
>punishment.
>
>
>Oh, you mean Arthur had his brains scattered all over the wall of the liquor
>store because Albert wanted the $13.66 Arthur had in the cash drawer? That's
>fine. Good thing Albert didn't call Arthur a ni**er as he shot him. I'd hate
>to
>think Albert's a racist.
I am at a loss to see how this advances any understanding of the issues
involved. For one thing, it's hardly "fine" when done for money, what with it
being a capital felony and all. Also, hate crime laws don't really have much
meaning in the context of something like murder, which is already the most
serious crime possible. The application is to things like vandalism and
assault.
I have no problem being a little rougher on the guy who paints swastikas and
racial malignancies on a public builing than on the guy who paints "Ozzie
rules!" on it. The former has caused more harm to the society.
mlo...@lobo.civetsystems.com
> They're also lacking in certain states where hate crimes are more
> frequently committed. Indiana comes to mind - I happen to know a law
> professor who specializes in "hate crime" law. He worked extensively on
> the case in Chicago a few years ago where a couple of White high-school
> kids from Bridgeport beat-up a Black teenager, causing him severe head
> injuries which left him mentally incapacitated. ... Anyway, this
> professor explained that, in Indiana, the crime could never have been
> prosecuted as such.
In Indiana, of course, beating someone's brains out is perfectly legal.
> The reason is not so much that Indiana legislators
> are racists,
Which any person would reasonably believe to be the only possible
reason for not criminalize unpopular political positions.
M.
Bill Baldwin
>Anyway, this
>professor explained that, in Indiana, the crime could never have been
>are racists, but that "hate crimes" occurs so frequently that, if they
>were to begin classifying cases as such, statistically they'd probably
>lead the nation in "hate crime" attacks.
I'm not interested in another liberal/conservative flame war. (I still have
those subject lines killed, though I suspect no one posts to them anymore.)
But this kind of reminds me of a recent "Mallard Fillmore" comic strip.
(Mallard is a conservative duck who works for a liberal paper.) The strip
feature a liberal explaining hate crime laws as follows:
"We liberals have to be careful.... On the one hand, we want to expand 'hate
crime' laws to include as many groups as possible. ... But not so much that
they include everybody ... in which case we'd be 'tough on crime.'"
Whatever your political convictions, you've gotta see the humor in that. I
hope.
The strip in question, and links to more Mallard Fillmore strips, can be found
at:
http://jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/1999/mallard112299.asp
And Jewish or not, the Jewish World Review is an excellent source for
editorial columnists of a certain slant.