Re: Fed appellate judge remarks re anonymity, free speech on the net

[Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>]

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 05:40 PM 9/12/96 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote:
> ...
> >Kozinski also suggested that computer-generated or morphed images of
> >children involved in sexual acts may not be protected under the Constitution
> >because of ongoing trauma to the child,
> 
> Which child?  Does he understand what "computer-generated" means?
> 

Yes, he does, I think.  But I think "protected" above should read 
"prohibited."  [Note to Greg: could that be a typo?]  The key kiddie 
porn/1st amendment case (whose name escapes 
me for the moment) offered two reasons why kiddie porn could be regulated 
in the face of the first amendment.  One reason was the "on-going trauma to 
the child [victim]."In a morphed image, they is not (or at least may not be) 
an actual child victim.  Thus the "continuing trauma" rationale for 
regulation does not exist in that case. 

> >while computer-generated or morphed images of adults would be protected. 
 
Different standards frequently apply to adults and children, in spite of 
those of you who like to arm your toddlers!  :-)

> What about the "ongoing trauma" to the adults?  I smell hypocrisy.

Adults, for the most part, are supposed to take care of themselves.

EBD


> 
> >The article says that Kozinski was skeptical that he or other federal judges
> >necessarily agreed with the 3rd Circuit's ruling in _ACLU v. Reno_ (finding
> >the CDA unconstitutional). 
> >
> >Kozinski is considered relatively conservative and relatively libertarian,
> >as 9th Circuit judges go. 
> 
> Which means that he'll last just a little longer "when the cyber-revolution 
> comes."
> 
> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
>