From: David Lubkin (lubkin@unreasonable.com)
Date: Fri Oct 22 1999 - 12:03:49 MDT
Phil Osborn wrote:
>Am I being paranoid. Perhaps not enuf. Consider that the anti-kiddie-port
>sections of the CDA specifically, as I recall, include ANY depiction of
>child sexuality. This includes - and there have been prosecutions on this
>basis - comic art, furry art, etc., in which children obviously were not
>employed. For that matter, the same kind of software that can age or un-age
>a person's face could just as easilly do the same for the entire body. You
>could digitize Deep Throat and run it through frame by frame and end up with
>90 year olds having sex - or 9 year olds.
There are many reasons to object to this law. My own core objection is
that it is effectively punishing people for their thoughts, rather than
their actions. (Thou shalt not have erotic thoughts about children.)
I would like to see a sharp change in our judicial system away from
differentiating offenses on the basis of intent or premeditation. If I murder
you, why does it matter whether I planned it ahead of time? Are you any more
or less dead?
Similarly, I object to laws against drunk driving. The offense should be
"impaired driving" or "reckless endangerment". If I hit you with my car, you
are just as injured whether I am impaired because I was drinking, I'm stoned,
I have a bad cold, or I just broke up with my girlfriend.
And why is conspiracy a crime? Why is "conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor"
a felony?
-- David Lubkin.
______________________________________________________________________________
lubkin@unreasonable.com || Unreasonable Software, Inc. || www.unreasonable.com
a trademark of USI:
> > > > > B e u n r e a s o n a b l e .
______________________________________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:35 MST