On the Hill: Child Porn "Morphing"

Hearings on the hill over the child pornographer horseman:

"Morphing" seems to be the latest buzzword for putting childrens faces on 
the bodies of adult models in sexually explicit poses and seems to have 
attracted enough attention to warrant congressional attention.

Interesting that the media is playing this up as a "net" deal.  (As if 
somehow it were impossible to do without the all powerful and evil internet.

I'd like to see exactly how they word the proposed prohibitons.  What 
constitutes "child" when the face painted on is pure artistry?  Will we 
see a simple and strict prohibition over modifiying sexually explicit 
pictures to make them appear to be of younger models (whatever their 
apparent age may be)?  Will we see a subjective test as to what is "child 
looking" enough?

Silliness.  All silliness.

Prediction:  Some manner of law will be on the books (Or perhaps passed, but 
unsigned) before the election attempting to prohibit some form of this 
activity.  Certainly Clinton is not going to veto such a bill before the 
election, which is doubtlessly when the right is going to try to push it 
through.  (Can they streamline it enough to get a vote in time?)

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:

> 
> Hearings on the hill over the child pornographer horseman:
> 
> "Morphing" seems to be the latest buzzword for putting childrens faces on 
> the bodies of adult models in sexually explicit poses and seems to have 
> attracted enough attention to warrant congressional attention.
> 
> Interesting that the media is playing this up as a "net" deal.  (As if 
> somehow it were impossible to do without the all powerful and evil internet.

I've heard of this kind of thing before. Individuals have already been 
sent to jail for doing this, as well as doing and 
distributing kiddie porn drawings. 

I suspect that since it's already illegal on the state level, that 
Congress is looking into making it a federal crime to distribute them 
over state lines via the Internet.

> I'd like to see exactly how they word the proposed prohibitons.  What 
> constitutes "child" when the face painted on is pure artistry?  Will we 
> see a simple and strict prohibition over modifiying sexually explicit 
> pictures to make them appear to be of younger models (whatever their 
> apparent age may be)?  Will we see a subjective test as to what is "child 
> looking" enough?

It only has to give the impression of being under the age of consent in 
order to be illegal. No real models have to be involved.

> Silliness.  All silliness.

That's debatable. However, in this politically correct environment, I 
wouldn't even give the impression of siding with the pedophiles if I were 
you.

> Prediction:  Some manner of law will be on the books (Or perhaps passed, but 
> unsigned) before the election attempting to prohibit some form of this 
> activity.  Certainly Clinton is not going to veto such a bill before the 
> election, which is doubtlessly when the right is going to try to push it 
> through.  (Can they streamline it enough to get a vote in time?)

I wouldn't doubt it.

> ---
> My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
> "In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
> Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
> 00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
> Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com
> 
>

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 5-Jun-96 Re: On the Hill: Child
Porn.. by Jeffrey A Nimmo@ionet.ne 
> I've heard of this kind of thing before. Individuals have already been 
> sent to jail for doing this, as well as doing and 
> distributing kiddie porn drawings. 
>  
> I suspect that since it's already illegal on the state level, that 
> Congress is looking into making it a federal crime to distribute them 
> over state lines via the Internet.


FYI -- I have a link to Bob Chatelle's Toni Marie Angeli "child porn"
case (photos of her kid for a Harvard class) at http://joc.mit.edu/

-Declan

Jeffrey A Nimmo wrote:
> ...
> It only has to give the impression of being under the age of consent in
> order to be illegal. No real models have to be involved.
> 
> > Silliness.  All silliness.
> 
> That's debatable.

Anything's debatable, but silliness it remains.  The entire (also
silly, but tediously common) "but there's a real victim involved"
argument goes out the window.  And where's the line drawn?  Like
take for example this filthy little number:

		o+<

Pretty wild, huh?  I mean, so young, and so willing!  Boy, I'm
gettin' all sweaty here just thinking about it; I'd better send
off this note quick and go take a cold shower.

______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX    * pain is inevitable  
       m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com          *
      <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101>         * suffering is optional

Bruce M. writes:
 > On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Jeffrey A Nimmo wrote:
 > 
 > > That's debatable. However, in this politically correct environment, I 
 > > wouldn't even give the impression of siding with the pedophiles if I were 
 > > you.
 > 
 >     Sometimes you have to decide whether to be politically correct or right.


Encryption is about free speech.  It's NEVER politically correct to
defend free speech.  Free speech is about offensive speech because
that's the only kind that people try to ban.


If you can't stand the heat, get out of the enkripchen.


-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>    http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson
Crynwr Software   | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | PGP ok
11 Grant St.      | +1 315 268 1925 voice | It's no mistake to err on
Potsdam, NY 13676 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   | the side of freedom.

On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Jeffrey A Nimmo wrote:

> That's debatable. However, in this politically correct environment, I 
> wouldn't even give the impression of siding with the pedophiles if I were 
> you.

    Sometimes you have to decide whether to be politically correct or right.

                    Bruce M. * brucem@feist.com
        ~---------------------------------------------------~
        "Knowledge enormous makes a god of me." -- John Keats

On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Jeffrey A Nimmo wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hearings on the hill over the child pornographer horseman:
> > 
> > "Morphing" seems to be the latest buzzword for putting childrens faces on 
> > the bodies of adult models in sexually explicit poses and seems to have 
> > attracted enough attention to warrant congressional attention.
> > 
> > Interesting that the media is playing this up as a "net" deal.  (As if 
> > somehow it were impossible to do without the all powerful and evil internet.
> 
> I've heard of this kind of thing before. Individuals have already been 
> sent to jail for doing this, as well as doing and 
> distributing kiddie porn drawings. 

I know indirectly of two state supreme courts that have overturned such 
convictions.

> I suspect that since it's already illegal on the state level, that 
> Congress is looking into making it a federal crime to distribute them 
> over state lines via the Internet.

See above.
As to federal crime, I believe so.

> > I'd like to see exactly how they word the proposed prohibitons.  What 
> > constitutes "child" when the face painted on is pure artistry?  Will we 
> > see a simple and strict prohibition over modifiying sexually explicit 
> > pictures to make them appear to be of younger models (whatever their 
> > apparent age may be)?  Will we see a subjective test as to what is "child 
> > looking" enough?
> 
> It only has to give the impression of being under the age of consent in 
> order to be illegal. No real models have to be involved.

Ok, what is "the impression of being under the age of consent" ?

> > Silliness.  All silliness.
> 
> That's debatable. However, in this politically correct environment, I 
> wouldn't even give the impression of siding with the pedophiles if I were 
> you.

That's what nyms are for.

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com

On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:

[snip]

> > I've heard of this kind of thing before. Individuals have already been 
> > sent to jail for doing this, as well as doing and 
> > distributing kiddie porn drawings. 
> 
> I know indirectly of two state supreme courts that have overturned such 
> convictions.

I would put it to you that being branded a pedophile and kiddie-porn 
operator can have worse implications than jail. For instance, I believe 
that even without a conviction, restraining orders can be placed which 
would prevent you from coming within a certain number of feet of 
children. If it were publically known you would almost certainly lose 
your job. I also imagine it would be hell on your marriage.

All this can result from an arrest, not necessarily a conviction.

Besides, I wouldn't count on the courts to uphold our rights. The Supreme 
Court just upheld civil forfeiture, allowing the cops to sieze your 
property without due (or any as far as I'm concerned) process of law.

> > I suspect that since it's already illegal on the state level, that 
> > Congress is looking into making it a federal crime to distribute them 
> > over state lines via the Internet.
> 
> See above.
> As to federal crime, I believe so.
> 
> > > I'd like to see exactly how they word the proposed prohibitons.  What 
> > > constitutes "child" when the face painted on is pure artistry?  Will we 
> > > see a simple and strict prohibition over modifiying sexually explicit 
> > > pictures to make them appear to be of younger models (whatever their 
> > > apparent age may be)?  Will we see a subjective test as to what is "child 
> > > looking" enough?
> > 
> > It only has to give the impression of being under the age of consent in 
> > order to be illegal. No real models have to be involved.
> 
> Ok, what is "the impression of being under the age of consent" ?

I believe that like all porn, it's a reasonability issue. If a 
"reasonable" person would believe that the person depicted in the drawing 
or morph to be underage, that it's illegal. I'm not sure, but I'll bet 
Sternlight would have an opinion. Anyone care (dare) to ask?

> 
> > > Silliness.  All silliness.
> > 
> > That's debatable. However, in this politically correct environment, I 
> > wouldn't even give the impression of siding with the pedophiles if I were 
> > you.
> 
> That's what nyms are for.

That's a good point. Anonymity makes it possible to ask questions that 
would be too embarressing or damaging to ask otherwise. It makes me 
wonder what would have happened if the Cypherpunks had been around in the 
McCarthy era.

I should have said that (A) (B) and (C) are linked by OR, not by AND.

-Declan

Excerpts from outbox: 7-Jun-96 Re: On the Hill: Child Porn.. by =>
cypherpunks@toad.com 
> (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor
> engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
>  
> (B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in
> sexually explicit conduct;
>  
> (C) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, or
> distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the
> material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in
> sexually explicit conduct.

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 5-Jun-96 Re: On the Hill: Child
Porn.. by Jeffrey A Nimmo@ionet.ne 
> I believe that like all porn, it's a reasonability issue. If a 
> "reasonable" person would believe that the person depicted in the drawing 
> or morph to be underage, that it's illegal. I'm not sure, but I'll bet 
> Sternlight would have an opinion. Anyone care (dare) to ask?

Read the legislation. I have the text of S.1237 in front of me now.

Child pornography is any depiction, including electronic, where:

(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

(B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in
sexually explicit conduct;

(C) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, or
distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the
material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in
sexually explicit conduct.

Anyone who "knowingly receives or distributes" it in any way over state
lines "including by computer" will be fined and given a 5 to 15 year
vacation at Club Fed.

-Declan

On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:

> Hearings on the hill over the child pornographer horseman:
> 
> "Morphing" seems to be the latest buzzword for putting childrens faces on 
> the bodies of adult models in sexually explicit poses and seems to have 
> attracted enough attention to warrant congressional attention.
> 
> I'd like to see exactly how they word the proposed prohibitons.  What 
> constitutes "child" when the face painted on is pure artistry?  Will we 
> see a simple and strict prohibition over modifiying sexually explicit 
> pictures to make them appear to be of younger models (whatever their 
> apparent age may be)?  Will we see a subjective test as to what is "child 
> looking" enough?

	As far as I was aware, the manner of currently judging the age of 
people in nude photographs consisted of a usually doctor administered 
examination (of the picture) where the genitals and other age 
characteristics of the BODY were taken into account.  I don't think a 
person's face ever was, or ever should be, a factor.

> Silliness.  All silliness.

	Very true.  Next there will be laws banning provocative pictures of
adults dressed in child-like garb or acting out child-like sexual 
fantasies (the infamous "spank me Daddy!).


                    Bruce M. * brucem@feist.com
        ~---------------------------------------------------~
        "Knowledge enormous makes a god of me." -- John Keats

On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Bruce M. wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> people in nude photographs consisted of a usually doctor administered 
> examination (of the picture) where the genitals and other age 
> characteristics of the BODY were taken into account.  I don't think a 
> person's face ever was, or ever should be, a factor.
> 
> > Silliness.  All silliness.
> 
> 	Very true.  Next there will be laws banning provocative pictures of
> adults dressed in child-like garb or acting out child-like sexual 
> fantasies (the infamous "spank me Daddy!).
> 

Urk anything that looks child-like, can be considered child porno.. 
again, it's a scarry thought that they govt. can prohibit someting that 
they deem to be "alike" in whatever way they feal....  :(


               *          <exalt@miworld.net>           *

On Wed, 5 Jun 1996, Bruce M. wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> > Hearings on the hill over the child pornographer horseman:
> > 
> > "Morphing" seems to be the latest buzzword for putting childrens faces on 
> > the bodies of adult models in sexually explicit poses and seems to have 
> > attracted enough attention to warrant congressional attention.
> > 
> > I'd like to see exactly how they word the proposed prohibitons.  What 
> > constitutes "child" when the face painted on is pure artistry?  Will we 
> > see a simple and strict prohibition over modifiying sexually explicit 
> > pictures to make them appear to be of younger models (whatever their 
> > apparent age may be)?  Will we see a subjective test as to what is "child 
> > looking" enough?
> 
> 	As far as I was aware, the manner of currently judging the age of 
> people in nude photographs consisted of a usually doctor administered 
> examination (of the picture) where the genitals and other age 
> characteristics of the BODY were taken into account.  I don't think a 
> person's face ever was, or ever should be, a factor.
> 
> > Silliness.  All silliness.
> 
> 	Very true.  Next there will be laws banning provocative pictures of
> adults dressed in child-like garb or acting out child-like sexual 
> fantasies (the infamous "spank me Daddy!).
> 
> 
>                     Bruce M. * brucem@feist.com
>         ~---------------------------------------------------~
>         "Knowledge enormous makes a god of me." -- John Keats
> 
> 
>

Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> writes:

 > I'd like to see exactly how they word the proposed
 > prohibitons.  What constitutes "child" when the face painted
 > on is pure artistry?  Will we see a simple and strict
 > prohibition over modifiying sexually explicit pictures to
 > make them appear to be of younger models (whatever their
 > apparent age may be)?  Will we see a subjective test as to
 > what is "child looking" enough?

 > Silliness.  All silliness.

Indeed.  One should note that some states already have
legislation which contains the magic phrase "appears to be" in
the specification of legal ages.  The testimony of a willing
pediatrician is all that is necessary to convert some random
fuzzy GIF into a lengthy prison term.

Morphing technology is a new approach to creating what appear to
be sexual depictions of children, but there have also been
prosecutions based on more traditional technology, like sissors
and paste.

Personally, I don't think it should be possible to commit a
crime in the privacy of ones home using only sissors, Scotch
Tape, an old Playboy, and a JC Penny Catalog.

Those familiar with "The Varieties of Religious Experience" will
recall something called "The Pious Imagination", which results in
every vaguely anthropomorphic smudge being seen as the face of
Christ.  I suspect the Child Sex Hysterics are afflicted with a
similar trait, which similarly transforms image ambiguity into
pre-teen orgies.

 > Prediction: Some manner of law will be on the books (Or
 > perhaps passed, but unsigned) before the election
 > attempting to prohibit some form of this activity. Certainly
 > Clinton is not going to veto such a bill before the
 > election, which is doubtlessly when the right is going to
 > try to push it through.  (Can they streamline it enough to
 > get a vote in time?)

Wasn't Orin Hatch the big proponent of "synthetic child porn"
legislation?  I remember him harping on the subject a while back.

Is he behind this new push?