[Milton-L] Re: porno vs. art?
cbcox at ilstu.edu
Tue Nov 29 16:41:08 EST 2005
Rose Williams wrote:
> Review what I said:
> "Child pornography, or anything else which ABUSES the helpless for the
> of a moneyed audience, is despicable. It should be outlawed, and it should
> be prosecuted."
> Prosecuted, not persecuted. Abuse, not artistic representation. Legal review
> and legal justice, not censorship.
> Rose Williams
There may be some confusion here. Under present law in many states, even
a cartoon representation of child sex, or a film in which adult (18 or
over) actors _pretend_ to be children, is a crime. There is no abuse of
children in either. And one does not need laws on child pornography as a
separate crime. Sexual abuse of a child, whether or not photographed,
is a crime after all, so why a separate law on child pornography?
I think that in some states it is even a crime to have such films in
one's possession. So if someone sent you spam containing photos of
children engaged in sex, and you didn't delete it quickly enough, you
could find yourself in prison.
More information about the Milton-L