Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 14:11:22 -0500 (EST) From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us> Subject: Re: M-TH: Who's afraid of Katie Roiphe?) On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: > I think that under the U.S. Communications Decency Act, representations of > child sex themselves are illegal. So some clever Photoshop whiz who'd > completely simulated a child sex image would be liable to harsh criminal > penalties. Don't know if this has been tested in the courts yet, but it > seems amazing to me that the image rather than the act is criminalized. The idea is that otherwise problems of proof are too hard. This law is very prosecution friendly, big surprise. But one can see the point. From a distributors', theaters', or buyers' point of view, the idea is that you're on notice. Don't mess with the stuff unless the actors clearly appear of age. Of course this makes for problems similar to those involved in statutory rape with just-barely underage people. The law is overbroad. The real harm isn't to 17 year olds to participate in nonobscene or even clearly obscene movies. It's to, say, under-14s. It is sort of ridiculous taht you could be prosecuted under the TDA for showing or owning a movie in which 18 year old who might look 17 or 16 enagage in "sexual conduct," Frankly it's a bit absurd that you could be prosecuted if the kids are actually 16 or 17. (I think back on what _I_ did at 16 or 17 with girls in that age bracket.) And the penalties are very harsh. It's a slightly redeeming fact that this isa federal crime, so you don't have to worry about elected state DAs from backwards states going after you. Prosecution would be by the US Attorney's Office, civil service professionals who have other and more serious fish to fry. --jks --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005