home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3436 news.admin.misc:385
- Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,news.admin.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!cubmol!dan
- From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
- Subject: Re: [news.admin.misc] Re: ALERT RE POSTINGS AND CORNELL ACCESS TO ALT.*.*.EROTICA HIERARCHY
- Message-ID: <1992Nov20.165220.2446@news.columbia.edu>
- Sender: usenet@news.columbia.edu (The Network News)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: cubmol.bio.columbia.edu
- Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
- References: <Bxy3Gx.CJw@cs.uiuc.edu> <1992Nov20.044211.7776@eff.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:52:20 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <1992Nov20.044211.7776@eff.org> greeny@eff.org (J S Greenfield) writes:
- >
- >Based upon a summary of the US child pornography standards, it is plausible
- >to me that "RUKO.GIF" could be found to constitute "child pornography."
- >(That particular picture included a close-up of the child's genitalia.)
- >
-
- Perhaps, but only by a gross misinterpretation of the law. RUKO.GIF can
- only be pornographic if _all_ nudity is pornographic. The MA law that
- stated this was overturned.
- The picture is very obviously one of those art-photo's that I particularly
- hate. But there is no erotic content, and the posting drew complaints that
- it shouldn't have been posted to a group with 'erotica' in the name. Posting
- it to alt.b.p.misc wouold have been better, IMHO (which doesn't go far in
- a.b.p.m).
- The picture didn't show a closup of any genitals, BTW. The girl was standing
- with her legs together. You could see a fold of skin in which her genitals
- would be located.
-
- DanZ
-
- --
- This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
- narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
- not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
-
-