From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: ca.politics
Subject: Re: Phil Ronzone says he looks for dirty pictures (Was Re: ...harassing calls)
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:20:12 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Sep9.091603.14434@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> In article <mike02512920808220543@batpad.lgb.ca.us> mike@batpad.lgb.ca.us (mike batchelor) writes:
> >phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
# (I've deleted a lot to cut down the size of the post.)
# 
# ## When the yahoo responded with a rude fuck you -- I told my boss (who enjoyed
# ## the choicer specimens of abpe). When he saw the latest work posted ( a .dl
# ## of two young boys sucking a pony) he turned white -- quite an achievment
# ## cosnidering he's asian.
# ## 
# ## Do YOU think it is O.K. to post such things (i.e., the .dl) from a company's
# ## systems? I don't.
# 
# #Personally I am not interested in pornography - it's boring.  I have
# #absolutely no objection at all to anyone wanting to look at it, or
# #whack off to it, and I am certainly not going to tell anyone what is
# #good pornography, what is bad pornography, and what is appropriate
# #pornography.  It's just a picture.  Your soul is not captured by the
# #camera, once the image is made it is made.  Without question the act
# #of making the boy/pony picture should be illegal, but the picture itself
# #is JUST A THING NOT AN ACT, you anthropological throwback!!
# 
# Far be it from me to agree with anything Ronzone writes, but this is
# not how child pornography is viewed.  In a Supreme Court ruling
# (Ferber 1982), the court found such pornography harmful in part
# because it constituted "a permanent record of children's participation
# and the the harm to the child is exacerbated by circulation."  So, I
# wouldn't be surprised if not only making the boys/pony photo but also
# just circulating it is illegal.  (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.)

Even if the photo was the result of someone with too much computing
resources, and a lot of bitmaps of a horse and little boys.

# #You and the boss you rode in on are just like the parent who tells his
# #kid "Don't use drugs," as he puts out his cigarette in the beer can
# #he just emptied.  You and the boss you rode in on are hypocrites to
# #the Nth degree, and the only thing more appalling than the fact that
# #you objected to the .dl is the fact that you have no clue about how
# #STUPID your objection to it was in the first place.
# 
# I think there is a difference between viewing photos of adults
# engaging in what we assume to be consensual sexual activities and of
# children performing oral sex on a pony.  I wouldn't be at all
# surprised if the state of California didn't see a difference too and
# has laws that prohibit the circulation of the photo of the boys and
# the pony.  (Disclaimer again...)

But if NAMBLA gets its way, the action portrayed would not be
a crime, and it's hard to see how the picture could be criminal
to distribute if the action portrayed isn't a crime.

-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
Alcohol prohibition didn't work; drug prohibition doesn't work; gun
prohibition won't work.
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7495 talk.politics.misc:44069 ba.politics:5078