[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TLA abuse (?) [non-crypto, mostly]

To: [email protected], "Clay Olbon II" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: TLA abuse (?) [non-crypto, mostly]
From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:36:03 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Sender: [email protected]

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 18-Jul-96 Re: TLA abuse (?)
[non-cryp.. by "Clay Olbon II"@dynetics 
> Child pornography is illegal, however I don't believe that pictures of
> nekkid children are always considered to be child pornography (however much
> small-minded twirps want you to believe that they are).  I know several
> "fundamentalists" who decry what our society has sunk to with images such

The Knox case established that lascivious exhibition of the genitals
(required for conviction) could take place when the kid was clothed. In
that case, the girls were dancing around wearing leotards.

I have my cites at work.

-Declan

References:
- Re: TLA abuse (?) [non-crypto, mostly]
  - From: "Clay Olbon II" <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: No Subject
Next by Date: Periodic Mix-to-DOS Port Inquiry
Prev by thread: Re: TLA abuse (?) [non-crypto, mostly]
Next by thread: Gorelick testifies before Senate, unveils new executive order
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread