[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
- To: [email protected]
- Subject: Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
- From: [email protected] (John Anonymous MacDonald)
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 10:07:20 -0700
- Comments: If this message concerns HIPCRIME.com, you should complainto them or their net provider directly; they put up a Java appletwhich searches the Web for mailto: links and causes the user'sbrowser to send mail to all of those people, via this service.Their net provider can be reached at <[email protected]>.This operator of this remailer in no way condones thiskind of abuse of the service.
- Sender: [email protected]
Rick Smith wrote:
> : ...the "little girls in leotards" case was only a few years ago, etc.)
> Don't know about that one. Is it illegal for little girls to be
> photographed in leotards now? "Nutcracker" is X rated? Move over,
But this proves precisely Tim's original point, that child
pornography is a thoughtcrime.
Here's a working definition of child pornography at the end of the
millenium: it's a picture of a child, in the hands of a pedophile.
Pictures of girls in leotarfds are not child pornography per se, but
if you think evil thoughts while watching them, then they become child
pornography. What got Stephen Knox in trouble was leaving so much
evidence that he was thinking those evil thoughts.