From: mtalbot@physics.adelaide.edu.au (David Bowman)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Computer graphics and child pornography
Date: 29 Aug 92 08:01:40 GMT



>|>	One question I haven't seen answerred yet is.  
>|>
>|>		??? WHAT IS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ???
>|>
>|>	If anyone can come up with reasonable definitions for both "child" and
>|>for "pornography" why not post your definitions? [by the way, statements of
>|>"you know what a child is" or "you know what pornography is" will be laughed

>|Child pornography can be defined as the sexually explicit visual depiction
>|of a minor, including sexually explicit photographs, negatives, slids,
>|magazines, moviews, or videotapes.       

>This definition is meaningless with such a vague term like "sexually
>explicit" in it. 

>|Child erotica (pedophile paraphernalia) can be defined as any material,
>|relating to children, that serves a sexual purpose for a given individual.
>|Some of the more common type of child erotica include toys, games,
>|drawings, fantasy writings, diaries, souvenirs, sexual aids, manuals,
>|letters, books about children, psychological books on pedophilia, and
>|ordinary photographs of children.

>This "definition", however, is so inane it's almost beyond words. A "book
>about children" or "ordinary photographs" being defined as erotic material
>based upon the purpose it serves "a given individual" is crazy, and pushing
>this does no good for any organization purporting to help children. This
>"definition" is about equivalent to defining cars to be criminal tools 
>simply because an occasional bank robber uses one for a getaway.

	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^The problem with cars is that THEY ARE
VERY DANGEROUS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHEN DRIVEN RECKLESSLY.  Can the same
thing be said about child pornography?

	But, back to my original question.  I have seen many DIFFERENT
definitons of child pornography, some of them are not only stupid are
contradict themselves.  There are (documented) cases of photograph proccessing
labs DESTROYING pictures and negatives of young humans (ie: under the age of
10.  This is not to be considerred a definition mearly a useful example)
playing under sprinklers or at the beach just because they were not wearing
any clothes (of any sort)!!!

	BY WHAT RIGHT DO THESE PEOPLE DO THIS ??????

		According to them the pictures were pornographic!  However,
there are plenty of people out in the big wide world with just such pictures
(of themselves and of their children), and these people will not hesitate to
show you their pictures of the family at the beach.
	So, are these pictures pornographic?  Or are they just normal pictures
of young people having fun?

Please note: As no-one has come up with a reasonable definition of "child"
I have been forced to use english which is some what lengthy.  If anyone would
care to rectify this problem please feel free to do so.


	The second half of my question has not been addressed at all.  So, I
shall state it in a way that might get a reply.

   QUESTION:  Is a picture of a young human (ie < 15 years old), which has
been generated only using a computer (ie no human model was required), child
pornography and if so how would the "offender" be prosecuted?  There is no
victim in this "crime" and all the evidence exists only on the computer or on
computer printouts.
	Has a "crime" been commited in the above situation??
		Personally I say NO.

	Flame me if you dare, but well reasoned arguments will get you much
further.


		David Bowman
			1:4:9