Making Imaginary Sex Illegal

http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/5153.html

Making Imaginary Sex Illegal

by Ashley Craddock 
12:05pm  14.Jul.97.PDT Is there such a thing as child porn which doesn't
involve children? Logic would say no, but adherence to the rules of
reason has never been a hallmark of the United States Congress,
particularly when it comes to hot-button issues like child protection. 

So maybe it shouldn't be surprising that Congress has made it a
criminal offense to depict non-obscene, sexually explicit material
involving anyone who "appears to be" a minor. Maybe it shouldn't be
surprising that it made it a criminal offense to advertise materials in
any way that "conveys the impression" that minors will be sexually
depicted. 

But what about the fact that Congress explicitly designed the law to
make computer-simulated child porn illegal? 

"Besides the completely unconstitutional prohibition on using young
adult actors, we're basically talking about criminalizing
pseudo-pornography," says William Bennett Turner, a San Francisco
First Amendment specialist. "I laughed when I first read that Congress
was trying to make imaginary sex illegal. I never thought the law
would pass." 

But in a climate in which the US president can seriously tout the myth
that fashion photography kicked off a heroin craze among teenagers
jonesing to jump on the fastest, hippest bandwagon, the Child
Pornography Protection Act was a sure shot. And at the end of 1996,
the law quietly made it a felony to engineer, sell, or even posses
computer-simulated images of smutty kids, or sexually explicit
depictions of real baby-faced adults. 

The rationale behind the Child Porn Act, introduced by Senator Orrin
Hatch (R-Utah), is by and large unoriginal: Pedophiles can use child
pornography - or anything that looks like child porn - to seduce kids.
Moreover, child porn, whether it depicts real kids, childlike adults, or
computer simulations of kids, makes pedophiles a little too hot and
bothered for society's good. But the age of morphing added a new twist
to the old arguments. When perverts can whip up sexual turn-ons
from composites of photographs of children or even from computer
graphics programs, argued supporters, a new child-porn definition is
crucial. 

Whether those computer-age fears have any more basis in reality than
your average monster-in-the-closet didn't seem to matter one whit
to Congress. Testimony that the Department of Justice had "not come
across any pedophiles who have actually used the morphing technology"
didn't slow the bill's passage. Neither did testimony by another
witness, Jeffrey Dupilka of the US Postal Service, who voiced his
official opinion that pedophiles "probably" knew about morphing
technologies, and were "most likely" using them, but that he didn't
"know for sure." No more concrete evidence made its way into Congress
before the bill passed. 

Now, anyone in possession of child pornography could face up to five
years in prison - more if they're repeat offenders. Producers and
distributors could face up to 30 years in jail for repeat offenses. 

Alarmed by the Child Porn Act's ramifications for films that cast
young actors as sexually active kids (before your favorite porn flick,
think Lolita or Romeo and Juliet) the adult entertainment industry
responded almost immediately. In January, the Free Speech Coalition
filed a brief against Attorney General Janet Reno, contending that the
government had far overstepped the First Amendment. 

The acting judge decided against a trial. Both parties, he announced,
could file briefs in support of their position. So on Friday, the
parties
filed their arguments in the United States District Court in San
Francisco. 

As the case has evolved, the government has moved toward the stance
that it didn't really mean to outlaw sexually explicit images of young
adults who might look like kids. What it meant to do was protect the
world from explicit kiddie morphs. 

It's a ridiculous position, argues Turner. So along with the American
Civil Liberties Union, last week he filed an amicus brief in support of
a
Free Speech Coalition's suit. "There is a real difference between
touching children sexually and touching computer keys to create
images: the former is wrong in itself and within the power of
government to prohibit; but there is nothing inherently wrongful
about using either a computer or adults to create sexually explicit
images," the document contends. 

The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments from both sides 8
August.

Alan Olsen <root@nwdtc.com> writes:
> Making Imaginary Sex Illegal
>
> by Ashley Craddock
> 12:05pm  14.Jul.97.PDT Is there such a thing as child porn which doesn't
> involve children? Logic would say no, but adherence to the rules of
> reason has never been a hallmark of the United States Congress,
> particularly when it comes to hot-button issues like child protection.

This has zero crypto-relevance, so I'll rant about the movies instead.

Some folks on this list may have heard of the book _Lolita by Vladimir
Nabokov, and/or seen the movie (directed I think by Stanley Kubrik circa
1965).  A couple of years ago someone remade the movie using a 14-year-old
actress.  Naturally, there was no sex.  Nevertheless every U.S. ditributor
refused to distribute the movie expressing the fear of being charged with
child pornography.

And of course you heard that _The Tin Drummer_, the German movie that won
the Oscar a couple of years ago, was seized in Oklahoma as being child porn.

Has anyone _not_ see _The Bridge over the River Kwai_? Did you know that
the sequel, _The Return to the River Kwai_, fairly successful in most countries
outside the U.S., was never released in the U.S. (in theaters or on tape),
perhaps because Sony owns the rights in the U.S. and found the movie
offensive to the Japs? (Wait a minute, that's not child porn...)

ObHack: Isn't child porn legal in some European countries? How about setting
up a (free) Web site someplace like Denmark with pictures that are illegal
in the U.S.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

> http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/5153.html
> 
> Making Imaginary Sex Illegal
> 
> by Ashley Craddock 
> 
> So maybe it shouldn't be surprising that Congress has made it a
> criminal offense to depict non-obscene, sexually explicit material
> involving anyone who "appears to be" a minor. Maybe it shouldn't be
> surprising that it made it a criminal offense to advertise materials in
> any way that "conveys the impression" that minors will be sexually
> depicted. 
> 
> But what about the fact that Congress explicitly designed the law to
> make computer-simulated child porn illegal? 

If "computer-simulated" images are legal, how can you tell that it is
computer simulated?  Everyone will then claim to be a talented artist, or
use reverse aging algorithms on adult porn photos, or just use enough
obvious features on a real picture to show computer alteration.  Or,
simply have a CG artist render the live scene?  Which category would that
be?  JPEG is a lossy compression technique - would that alteration to a
photograph be considered "computer simulation". 

> As the case has evolved, the government has moved toward the stance
> that it didn't really mean to outlaw sexually explicit images of young
> adults who might look like kids. What it meant to do was protect the
> world from explicit kiddie morphs. 

If anyone watched the original hearings, this is what they were discussing
as the problem with the original definition.  I forget the specific
legalese, but if one face was pasted on a different body, for some reason
it ceased to fall within the old definition, making it very easy to create
"legal" child-pornography.  Of course courts regularly ignore legislative
intent. 

Congress is notoriously bad at coming up with good legal definitions, and
I was bothered that they didn't simply include "computer-altered" images
in the existing definition instead of a complete redifinition of "anything
that appears to be".

I hope the existing law is overturned as being too broad so that the
narrower definition can be passed.

But to return to the cypher aspect, what about altering existing images so
that they are unidentifiable as to whether they are from real acts or
truly the products of an imagination.  Will we now need someone from the
government to certify the kiddie porn isn't real?

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---

On Tue, Jul 15, 1997 at 12:25:55PM -0400, Unprivileged user wrote:
> But to return to the cypher aspect, what about altering existing images so
> that they are unidentifiable as to whether they are from real acts or
> truly the products of an imagination.  Will we now need someone from the
> government to certify the kiddie porn isn't real?

Yes, that's the logical next step -- Government Approved Porn (GAP).  
Perhaps we could get Senator Hatch to sponsor a bill?

The constitutional implications are staggering.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

> > Yes, that's the logical next step -- Government Approved Porn (GAP).
> > Perhaps we could get Senator Hatch to sponsor a bill?

> We have government approved gambling with terrible odds already. 
> This sounds like the next logical step.

There's government-approved porn already; you can get it from
your Postal Inspector by letting him know you're a suspect\\\\\\\\\
interested in that sort of thing.  The odds of you getting arrested
for it instead of the Postal Inspector are also terrible...




#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
#   (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies.  Thanks.)

On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:

> Yes, that's the logical next step -- Government Approved Porn (GAP).  
> Perhaps we could get Senator Hatch to sponsor a bill?
> 
> The constitutional implications are staggering.

"Welcome to the future.  Here is your free porn."

alano@teleport.com | "Those who are without history are doomed to retype it."

On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 15, 1997 at 12:25:55PM -0400, Unprivileged user wrote:
> > But to return to the cypher aspect, what about altering existing images so
> > that they are unidentifiable as to whether they are from real acts or
> > truly the products of an imagination.  Will we now need someone from the
> > government to certify the kiddie porn isn't real?
> 
> Yes, that's the logical next step -- Government Approved Porn (GAP).  
> Perhaps we could get Senator Hatch to sponsor a bill?
> 
> The constitutional implications are staggering.

Actually, Government Approved Kiddieporn, or GAK.  Isn't Hatch already for
GAK?

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---

At 12:25 PM -0400 7/15/97, Unprivileged user wrote:
>> http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/5153.html
>>
>> Making Imaginary Sex Illegal
>>
>> by Ashley Craddock
>>
>> So maybe it shouldn't be surprising that Congress has made it a
>> criminal offense to depict non-obscene, sexually explicit material
>> involving anyone who "appears to be" a minor. Maybe it shouldn't be
>> surprising that it made it a criminal offense to advertise materials in
>> any way that "conveys the impression" that minors will be sexually
>> depicted.
>>
>> But what about the fact that Congress explicitly designed the law to
>> make computer-simulated child porn illegal?
>
>If "computer-simulated" images are legal, how can you tell that it is
>computer simulated?  Everyone will then claim to be a talented artist, or
>use reverse aging algorithms on adult porn photos, or just use enough
>obvious features on a real picture to show computer alteration.  Or,
>simply have a CG artist render the live scene?  Which category would that
>be?  JPEG is a lossy compression technique - would that alteration to a
>photograph be considered "computer simulation".
>

Exactly. Like crypto, technology is making moot these Nanny laws, but the
legislators don't get it.  I completely reject Congress' and the SC's
different treatment of porn and graphic violence in the media.  Either both
or neither should be banned. The real issue is: Thought Crime.  Should
society have the right to control information content which cannot be shown
to directly endanger or harm specific parties?  I and many libertarians
would say HELL NO.

--Steve

PGP encrypted mail PREFERRED (See MIT/BAL servers for my PK)
PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61  81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schear (N7ZEZ)     | Internet: azur@netcom.com
7075 West Gowan Road     | Voice: 1-702-658-2654
Suite 2148               | Fax: 1-702-658-2673
Las Vegas, NV 89129      |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

        God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
        The courage to change the things I can;
        The weapons that make the difference;
        And the wisdom to hide the bodies of the people that got in my way;-)

        "Surveilence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus,
        potential entertainment."
        --G. Beato

       "We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million
        typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of
        Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is
        not true."                           -- Dr. Robert Silensky

On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Steve Schear wrote:

> The real issue is: Thought Crime.

"The only war that counts is the war on the imagination." --Diane DiPrima

At 11:54 AM -0700 7/15/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 15, 1997 at 12:25:55PM -0400, Unprivileged user wrote:
>> But to return to the cypher aspect, what about altering existing images so
>> that they are unidentifiable as to whether they are from real acts or
>> truly the products of an imagination.  Will we now need someone from the
>> government to certify the kiddie porn isn't real?
>
>Yes, that's the logical next step -- Government Approved Porn (GAP).
>Perhaps we could get Senator Hatch to sponsor a bill?

We have government approved gambling with terrible odds already.  This
sounds like the next logical step.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | The Internet was designed  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | to protect the free world  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

At 9:25 AM -0700 7/15/97, Unprivileged user wrote:
>If "computer-simulated" images are legal, how can you tell that it is
>computer simulated?

Well, for a start, you can save evidence of the steps you took in making
the images.  If you are combining images (adult actors for the X stuff, and
children for the faces etc.) then save the original images and some of the
rejected intermediate images.  If you are drawing from scratch (e.g. using
paint and brush), save the sketches, and perhaps also photos of the
intermediate stages of the final image.

Given a rational legal system (Yea, I know), these steps should give a
complete defense against the charge that you abused children in making the
images.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | The Internet was designed  | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | to protect the free world  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments.  | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA