Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!texbell!nuchat!sugar!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Illegality of alt.sex (WAS: Re: USSR International Computer Club
Summary: Comment
Keywords: illegal activities
Message-ID: <2995@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 3 Feb 89 19:49:33 GMT
References: Upon request
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 72

In article <6006@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, D. W. James writes:
 
> And then say the same thing.  Or, if you like, I can send you the
> paper that this is the reference list to, it presents evidence that
> the material in soc.singles (this predates alt.sex) not only *not*
> pornographic, but in fact could be a valuable tool in fighting the
> effects of pornography. 


Speaking of the effects of pornography: let's look at the empirical
evidence.  When all anti-porn laws in Denmark were stricken many
years back, a significant *drop* in sex crimes occurred.  So,
theories and conjectures aside, it is difficult to claim
convincingly that pornography leads to anti-female violence --
indeed, the opposite would be indicated.  Personally, my
tastes run more toward THE COSBY SHOW or STAR TREK IV, but
I don't feel entitled to censor others.


> 
> 
> )The US of A has laws prohibiting "pornography" involving
> )"children" under 18.  This has been construed [in one case] to
> )include a father taking the picture of his 18 month old child in
> )the nude.  Hence, if an article on alt.sex talks about two
> )teenagers boinking that can be construed to be illegal per se.
> 
> 	Again, (and I'd like to see a reference to that court case,
> either you aren't telling us everything or there is something silly
> going on in some courthouse) 

In all seriousness, when ISN'T there something silly going on in some
courthouse?  I have no doubt at all that the case above could have
happened as stated.  With burglars winning judgements against
homeowners, I suspect any sort of looniness is possible.   Just
remember: the same people who made up the jury in that case
also gave us Jimmy Carter, Dan Quayle, Jim Wright, Jerry Brown,
Spiro Agnew, etc.

>  
> )Of course, none of the above has ever met a recent court
> )challenge and "Free Speech" considerations are very much
> )involved.  The point is that only one crusading States Attorney
> )or southren[sic] High Sheriff[sic] is all that is required to
> )make a stink.
> )=Dennis L. Mumaugh
> 
> 	Agreed.  The question is, would he have a federal foot
> to stand on?  I don't think so.
> 

I agree - once it got to Federal court, the defendant would
be OK.  But what about the lost time, legal fees, notoriety, 
etc.?  Not to change the subject too dramatically, but I think
we need a law that states that, when Constitutional rights
are violated, the officials responsible, not the general
treasury, will have to pay compensation.



Jeff Daiell
(opinions my own, until taxed away)


INDEPENDENCE FOR TEXAS!



-- 


               HAVE YOU HUGGED A TECH AIDE TODAY?