The American Civil Liberties Union

This is a bit of an equivocation when the term "causal" is used as lightly as you are using it here, or would have to in order to rope in NAMBLA.The original question was NAMBLA's advocacy of illegal activity. Originally you took the position that that was enough. I pointed out that advocacy of illegal activity was not considered "causal" per se and definitely held up as protected speech throughout the history of this nation."Causal" has to be in an immediate and specific enough situation that it is "incitement". Arach and I have already discussed this within this thread, unconnected to direct posts to you.1) Do you understand that "causal" has traditionally required a greater connection between word and action, because advocacy to illegal activity has been the driving force for change in the US including the nation's inception? A causal link was not actually established at all. From your own articles the perpetrators did not follow what was in the literature at all. What has happened is that a court has convicted (if they did and it was upheld which I am not so sure about as it still exists) NAMBLA in a civil case, which does not rise to the same level of scrutiny as a criminal case, and could have been achieved by a biased jury based on hatred of the accused.I mention the latter because it can be shown for past civil rights issues that people were convicted by juries of things in the past which would not be upheld now, simply because of bigotry at the time. A jury can convict a ham sandwich if they hate it enough, or let it go if they love it despite the overwhelming evidence. The position of the ACLU is to fight such inequities, particularly when they effect civil rights.In these cases, by convicting on such a weak definition of "causality" there are many dire consequences for free speech. The only way they will not appear is if juries simply retain bias and hold a weak version for pedophiles and a normal version of causality for everyone else.2) Do you agree with that the version of "causality" that you suggest has been "established" in those cases, is good enough to convict publishers of material and whole groups of people associated with it? This is the reason that I asked my question and why the ACLU, among other legal groups, have found the cases against NAMBLA as something chilling. "Similar Causal Links" can be found, and in very common situations. Nevermind that KKK or neoNazis, there are everyday examples of this "similar causal link" which will act to stifle communication, some I imagine that would be very important to you. You don't have to agree with it, but the natural question following such as statement is why would you disagree? They are set up to defend those appealing to their civil rights, and NAMBLA (in some cases) is doing just that.3) Given that the ACLU covers this area of law, regardless of entity, why should they make an exceptionwith NAMBLA?Is it because of this?... So your personal position is noted. You dislike pedophiles and anything advocating that position. There are people who dislike other groups of people and anything advocating those other positions. Since all of these "bigoted" types will be calling on the gov't to destroy the opposing groups, who is going to defend them? The ACLU.That is the role of the ACLU, and so why it would seem strange for you to say they should protect some groups and not others, when their function would cover both.More importantly, they will enter cases (regardless of group) where there is a precedent which could chill civil rights. In the cases you mentioned (save the direct sale of cp charge) there is a logical chilling effect on free speech which would come from such a loose interpretation of Causal Link.I hope you will answer the three questions I have numbered above.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

the city, who did. ....because that's what the thread has been mostly about? you said that the march never occured, which, while true, is not the point. you've been assuming the entire thread that it is. you quoted a law to me in response to the very case that overturned that law. alright, time for more american gov't 101. the supreme court, through marbury v. madison has the power of judicial review. this means that they can look at laws passed in congress, decide that they are not fitting with the constitution, and strike them down. in this respect, the supreme court does have power over congress.do you really not know this? yes, fine. gray area, etc. now explain to me EXACTLY why nambla's rights would not be protected when the kkk's were in skokie? NO. not "casual link." not even direct link. "CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER." we've been over this. i posted the court cases that establish that test. heck, "high times" has a direct link to illegal activity. really? cite them here please. kkk, neo-nazis, and the national socialist part. i do think they were all party to the case. but i'll check that if you want. see, here i thought "kkk" and "strange fruit" were somewhat synonymous. no, i'm pointing out that if you were to argue your case in front of them, this would the very first question they'd ask you. no, you don't. that's the beauty of this country. but the fact remains that unless they violate certain standards, they have the right to express their opinion as much as you do yours. and i also have the right to tell you that you're wrong. advocating illegal activity cannot be punished. that's what i keep trying to say. it just can't, unless there is a clear and present danger. yes, every legal means. ironically here, you're advocating illegal means. in other words, you're excercising the very right that protects them.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-17-2005 03:07 PM

---

אָרַח

It can tell itself what to do? Me, I never make tpyos.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

im ake typoes all teh time.(fixed)

You seem to think that this is an open and shut case. A casual link is not sufficient, there must be CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER.
Maybe we have been over it, but pardon me if I rehash this topic again because I believe it is germaine to my point.You have used Clear and present danger several times in this thread as the only reason to break the prior restraint standard: But the court case that you cited clearly states that the traditional clear and present danger standard has been found inadequate.

quote:

---

The Supreme Court’s per curiam opinion used the Holmes-Brandeis language but nonetheless represented an interpretive break with the former Justices’ clear and present danger standard....Thus, the Court modified the clear and present danger standard outlined in Dennis and Yates by restricting the temporal element.75

​

In overturning the defendant’s conviction in this case, the Court reasoned that the only type of speech that can be subject to prior restraint is that which is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.76 This case remains the standard against which virtually all incarnations of private and public censorship are challenged, including tort challenges to instructional speech. Source

---

I realize that incitement to violence or imminent lawless action has been discussed in this thread but I thought a brief revisit may be in order.So what constitutes directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce action?
Here is a case where the publishers of a pamphlet detailing how to commit murder were found liable in conspiracy to commit murder. The court rejected the notion that the First Amendment shielded the defendant from liability in a wrongful death action where their publication aided and abetted the actual killer.There is case law regarding publications being held liable for the material published since it was sufficiently offensive to the preservation of an ordered society.

quote:

---

In 1997, in Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the First Amendment was not a bar to plaintiffs’ wrongful death suit against the publisher of a pamphlet that both inspired and enabled a man to proceed on a path of killing for hire.140 In Rice, the survivors of three murder victims sued the publisher of a pamphlet that provided detailed instructions on how to solicit, plan, execute and cover-up murders for hire.141 For purposes of summary judgment, the defendant-publisher stipulated that it knew and intended the pamphlet to be used by people to become or hire contract killers.142 The defendant then asked the court to declare that nonetheless, as a matter of law, the First Amendment acted as a complete bar to plaintiffs’ wrongful death action.143

​

Whereas the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Fourth Circuit rejected the notion that the First Amendment shielded defendant from liability in a wrongful death action where their publication aided and abetted the actual killer.144 The court stated that the type of publication at issue in the case, although not sufficient to satisfy the stringent requirements of Brandenburg, was nonetheless offensive to the preservation of an ordered society.145 Therefore, according to the court, because the publication was integral in effectuating activity that could lawfully be suppressed, the publisher could be equally liable for its part in the conspiracy.

---

Granted, this case does not deal with child pornography but it does indicate that certain types of published information is offensive enough to the preservation of an ordered society such that the publishers of the pamphlet were not protected under the First Amendment.Did this pamphlet constitute imminent lawless action or to use the supreceded terminology Clear and Present Danger?It remains to be seen whether child rape as described in some of NAMBLA’s literature could be interpreted as incitement to violence or imminent lawless action. To me at least, it doesn’t seem to be the open and shut case as you are presenting.

I just don’t see this to be true. Certain exceptions do exists and it is up to the courts to decide on an individual basis what is and is not sexually explicit scenes. But in general sexually explicit scenes with children is clearly NOT protected.Holmes previously cited a blog where certain portions of the Child Protection Prevention Act (CPPA) were found to be unconstitutional as related to computer generated images. That’s true, but the whole host of other law related to the depiction of children in sexually explicit scenes as you phrase it, is still in force. Here is a quote from that site:

quote:

---

As a threshold matter, the Supreme Court set forth the types of materials that may be prohibited without violating the Constitution. Actual child pornography, involving images of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct may rightfully be banned and its production and distribution criminalized under the famous 1982 Supreme Court case of New York v. Ferber.

---

So you are wrong to say that it is constitutionally protected to depict children in sexually explicit scenes.

Is there any mention of advocacy in my post? No there isn’t, yet your response is an objection to my comments. Why? NAMBLA is a group of pedophiles who’s members engage in all sorts of illegal activities.Do you agree with this or not? Is there any mention of advocacy? Then why do you create it from this quote of mine where none exists? Meaning that I wouldn’t make a blanket statement that the supreme court > congress as you have done. They are two of the three branches of government in the US with the executive being the third. It seems you are the one in need of the civics lesson.
Using the phrase supreme court > congress is correct but only in certain instances.Those are the cases where the supreme court is excercising it’s constitutional power over congress. This power is exerted when legislation passed by congress is found unconstitutional, that’s a check on congressional power so in that situation supreme court > congress.But congress can exert it’s power over the supreme court by ammending the constitution with support from the States. That’s a check on power of the supreme court. That’s a situation where congress > supreme court. There are other checks and balances on each of the three branches.So when I say that I wouldn’t use the phrase supreme court > congress. My intention was to allow for those situations where the opposite is true and congress > supreme court. Or more precisely that no one branch of government has free reign over the other branches.

I took no such position. I said:Of course illegal behavior has a right to be defended. But NAMBLA is encouraging illegal behavior through their website and the ACLU has stated that they have a right to do so."This is exactly what I said. There is no quantification as to the extent of advocacy offered nor is there an explicit statement for causality. You added those on your own.It was Arach who first mentioned advocacy when he said:You have a 1st amendment right to advocate any activity you wish, legal or illegal. He further went on to state i forget the exact standard, but i think the illegal activity advocated has to cause serious physical harm or endanger the lives and well beings of innocent people and/or government officials.This then degenerated into accusations by you and others that I would have prevented MLK, rosa parks, and a whole assortment of civil rights issues dating all the way back to the founding of this nation. AbsurdBut in the interest of decorum, I will answer your questions:

quote:

---

1) Do you understand that "causal" has traditionally required a greater connection between word and action, because advocacy to illegal activity has been the driving force for change in the US including the nation's inception?

---

Yes I understand this, but your question is misdirected. You must have forgotten that it was you and Arach who discussed causality and its relation to imminent threat therefore your question should be presented to him.After all, it was you who corrected Arach’s misunderstanding in this area when in message 26, you wrote:

quote:

---

Crash and Berb were correct and you [Arach] seem to be missing the difference between advocacy and incitement. Incitement is immediate and considered if not actually taking action, it is causative given its context. Incitement is also usually directed at something specific, while advocacy is generalized.

---

Yes, incitement is usually directed at something specific, but not always. A pamphlet can be non specific by NOT being directed at a specific person, yet can still be considered incitement depending on the text of the pamphlet.Now, on to your second question. You said:

quote:

---

A causal link was not actually established at all. From your own articles the perpetrators did not follow what was in the literature at all. What has happened is that a court has convicted (if they did and it was upheld which I am not so sure about as it still exists) NAMBLA in a civil case, which does not rise to the same level of scrutiny as a criminal case, and could have been achieved by a biased jury based on hatred of the accused.

---

You are wrong to say a causal link has not been established. You can’t possibly be definitive in a case that is still pending. As far as I know, the Massachusetts civil case brought against NAMBLA has not been decided.Your statement that the perpetrators did not follow the literature is nonsense. You have nothing to support this claim. It’s wishful thinking on your part. The articles that I posted in Message 77 say otherwise. Here is a refresher for you:

quote:

---

NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them

---

So that we are clear on this. These are statements being made by the plaintiff prosecuting the case and at this point it is an allegation yet to be proven.Further, there is nothing in the articles about the perps not following NAMBLA’s literature. That is exactly the opposite point of view and the whole reason NAMBLA has been dragged into court in the first place.But you knew that. You also know the term used when someone purposefully misrepresents information as you have done.You say the NAMBLA verdict could have been achieved by a biased jury based on hatred of the accused. Sure, but since neither you nor I have the details of the court case, the verdict could have been achieved by a fair minded jury who examined the evidence and found NAMBLA guilty.

quote:

---

2) Do you agree with that the version of "causality" that you suggest has been "established" in those cases, is good enough to convict publishers of material and whole groups of people associated with it?

---

Yes I do and there is case law to support it. In Message 125 I quoted Rice vs Paladin Enterprises where Paladin was the publisher of a pamphlet giving instructions on how to commit murder.That information was used by a man to both inspire and enable him to commit murder. According to the court, the publisher could be equally liable for its part in the conspiracy [to commit murder].

quote:

---

3) Given that the ACLU covers this area of law, regardless of entity, why should they make an exception with NAMBLA?

---

You asked and then tried to answer your own question by quoting something I said upthread:NAMBLA is a group of pedophiles who’s members engage in all sorts of illegal activities. Those members have a right to free speech and can say anything they want as they are being led to prison. I believe every legal means should be expended by law enforcement and concerned citizens to shut down NAMBLA.Then your comment on this:

quote:

---

So your personal position is noted. You dislike pedophiles and anything advocating that position. There are people who dislike other groups of people and anything advocating those other positions. Since all of these "bigoted" types will be calling on the gov't to destroy the opposing groups, who is going to defend them? The ACLU.

---

I wouldn’t say my dislike for pedophiles makes me a bigot. I dislike an organization who is publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children, actively trains their members how to rape children and get away with it, distributes child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them.So no, they won’t get a Christmas card from me.Now i’d like to hear your comments on a softball I pitched back in Message 104

quote:

---

It is true that some of the ACLU’s actions in right wing causes go unreported in the media. That does not mean that I agree with every single thing the ACLU does. Do you? Are all of their causes automatically correct? Do you blindly follow their opinions and consider all of their actions automatically beyond question? Are they always the perfect bellwether for liberal opinion in this country?

---

This message has been edited by Monk, Tue, 05-17-2005 11:48 PM

no, YOU seem to think that this is a point of debate. this is what the law says.also, you chould make sure stuff you quote actually supports your argument. in other words, the action it would provoke would have to be immediate. exactly. you must not have actually read the case. because, interestingly enough, an excerpt from the hit-man manual is part of the case. so, if such a pamphlet in and of itself was dangerous, why would the ruling judge COPY that form of speech into his decision? makes little sense. let's look at WHY it wasn't protected:

quote:

---

A conclusion that Paladin directed Hit Man to a discrete group rather than to the public at large would be supported, even if not established, by the evidence that Hit Man is not generally available or sold to the public from the bookshelves of local bookstores, but, rather, is obtainable as a practical matter only by catalogue.

---

context.and just so you know for future reference, a circuit court of appeals does not overrule the supreme court. no, it doesn't apply at all, because nambla is a public organization. anyone and everyone can get stuff from them, not JUST people who are specifically interested in molesting children. the paladin case was about a book specifically written for, and marketted to hitmen and only hitmen, not the general public. they lost on the grounds that the group was not trying to influence public opinion.reading the cases helps, btw.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-18-2005 08:43 AM

---

אָרַח

no, he was actually slightly confused, and i was trying to figure how to word "clear and present danger" on little sleep, and not having had a law course in more than a year. if you look down a bit from there, we sorted out the misunderstanding, i found the correct wording, and we're on the same side. actually, it's not absurd. you're advocating breaking of prior restraint laws for case where there is no clear and present danger as defined by the courts. if this were acceptable behaviour, rosa parks and mlk would have probably been stopped. in fact, as i recall, mlk was. and malcom x -- well... [edit]you know, it just occured to me that apparently i'm dyslexic. i've been reading that as "casual" not "causal." sorry for the misunderstanding.now, can you show how and where a causal link as been established? in a court of law, of course.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-18-2005 04:09 PM

---

אָרַח

you gone and rented "kids" yet?or "american beauty?" robert mapplethorp would disagree. yes, i actually quoted the case earlier. they found that the statute was NOT overbroad, and did not violate the constitution. compare to the ashcroft case. yes, i sure am. have you seen "kids" yet? or "american beauty?" or franco zefferelli's "romeo and juliet?"

---

אָרַח

don't know. but i would imagine so, yes. yes, in post 41.

quote:

---

NAMBLA has no Constitutional right to post online descriptions of juvenile abduction and molestation techniques

---

nambla is considered an advocate for child molestation. and you think their rights of free speech should be restricted because of the distastefulness of their position. is this a strawman, in light of the above quote? and this is one of them. as in the case of title 18. hasn't happened in a while though. and us code is not the same as an amendment.

---

אָרַח

Encouraging illegal behavior does not suggest causing such behavior. Advocacy would be encouraging, incitement would be causing. Perhaps there was a miscommunication because you used encouraging (which could be read as advocacy) instead of a stricter term which would imply just language which causes actions?If this is true, am I to understand that your position is that only speech which has a causal connection to actions should be restricted? The MLK and Rosa Parks issues were secondary to the discussion of advocacy being unprotected speech. You claimed that no one should act in a way that is illegal until the laws have successfully been lobbied and changed. I said it was practically a duty, and have gone on to cite those civil rights examples. Advocacy to commit illegal actions and the commission of illegal acts, prior to successful lobbying for change has been a key part of civil rights movements.If you are now suggesting you are okay with this, what is the difference between pedophiles advocating and doing what they think is right, compared to previous civil rights issues where people were arrested and convicted and those convictions upheld? Remember Rosa was not the first, just the last. Apparently you missed the message where Arach and I ironed out the miscommunication between ourselves. First, thank you for answering my question. However, I do not agree with the above statement and would like you to explain how a court determines incitement based on "text" involved. With the exceptions of commercial speech and obscenity (which has lately been losing support) and libel, the nature of what is written is not important for protection, and has not been indicated to address degree of incitement.I guess I would like and example and a description why one set of text is more inciting, outside of context and wholly toward content. I will note that I had within the very quote you cited, mentioned that I was uncertain of the outcome of the trial. My argument regarding causality was based on issues outside of the court decision, and I tried to make that clear. First there was a discrepancy regarding the text and the action. Second, a verdict (even if one was rendered) does not prove causality, especially in a civil trial with weaker rules of evidence and of course may involve bias. People were once jailed for handing out information on contraceptives... we would not consider that causative at this point in time, while the public did back then. Uhhhh... I am not a member of NAMBLA, and neither do I support them. You may find threads where I specifically describe how they mistake literature as if it advocates their position (when it doesn't), and how the laws I do think are appropriate regarding sex and age while not overtly making them criminals would often enough put a practical crimp in their practices and many would probably end up on the wrong side of the law.Thus there is no "wishful thinking" on my part at all. There is simply a lack of hate, and so I am looking directly at what you presented as evidence regarding the case.There are inconsistencies specifically with regard to causality. Regardless of cp (which would end up being prosecuted on its own issue aside from incitement), and the unsubstantiated claims of child trading (is there anything besides assertion on that?), causality would require their language ("text") to be followed by the perpetrators.I suggest you go back and look at your own sources. While technically they do advocate rape, in the sense of statuatory rape, and describe how to avoid detection or capture, these were absolutely not the actions followed by the perpetrators.Remember your own sources, after conveniently misnaming one book in an inflammatory way, state that it tells members how to approach children and ingratiate themselves with the parents, and then how to get away if they get into trouble.The perpetrators kidnapped and violently raped the kid and then did not flee in the way described. Heck even if they fled in the way descibed, which I can only assume follows many other publicly available guides on false identities and avoiding detection, they certainly did not follow the suggestions about how to go about getting into a sexual relationship with a child.If there is other evidence I am not aware of and you are, you cannot blame me for that oversight. Please present the additional evidence you have. If this is all you are working on then you are overreaching in suggesting causation. Look back at the description of the literature by the prosecution, and the actions of the defendants. Without the prosecution's deliberate mistitling of the literature as "Rape and Escape", there is little connection between the stated contents and the actions undertaken.As far as what any prosecution can claim and what they can indict, that is separate from what they have offered as evidence. You can indict a ham sandwich if you want to accuse it and you get enough people that hate ham sandwiches on a jury. I did not misrepresent evidence, but the prosecutors certainly did. Isn't there a difference between the title of teh book they claimed NAMBLA published, and the actual title? Isn't there a difference between the recommendations of that book and the activities of the perpetrators they claim to have been "caused" to commit the crime by said literature?I doubt the admins, if they are watching, are stupid enough that they can't figure out you are calling me a liar. While this is true I am making the assumption that they and you have presented some of the most damning evidence. If this is not the case, then you are right. But then who are you to claim the causal connection has been made? You remember you did claim that? Again I point out to you that the suggestions in the NAMBLA literature that were mentioned have little resemblance to the actions undertaken.If you agree that encouraging behavior is the same as causing it to occur when others do them, despite not being exactly what the person's wrote or intended, then there are some follow up questions I have.Over the last several years there have been a few cases of women, and sometimes men, killing children because of their Xian beliefs. They cite Xian doctrine that allows for it (and it most certainly does) and why they felt compelled to do so based on the reverence of their faith. Some were murders and others were unintentional killings as a result of physical punishments prescribed by religious tenets.According to your theory of causality then, the publishers of Bibles as well as any religious people which they may have had contact with and encouraged their literal interpretation of the Bible as well as fervent following of God's will, should be liable for conspiracy charges?If not, what makes them different? Let's use two cases, one in which the actor is not a member of a specific church, and one which is and whose tenets are strict (and mandate exorcisms or restraint from certain medical care). Actually it does, but don't take it so bad. We are all bigots about something, even me. I guess I could have used the word "biased" but I felt "bigot" was more accurate. You have a dislike of these people and their behavior and cannot feel good about them. Fair enough, and I cast no dispersions on the fact that you have such feelings.The point of a plural society is to somehow manage to keep all the bigots living together as best as can be. Some disliked organizations that published materials that says its okay to have sex with people of the same sex or other race or etc etce, trained their members how to criminally have sex with said group and get away with it. In some cases they distributed porn regarding those activities as well as creating networks for people to share that interest.What is the difference between the two situations except that at present sex with children is disliked and labelled as statuatory rape? Heads up: please do not use the circular excuse "the people they are having sex with are children".Everything is disliked and illegal until such time as it is accepted and/or legal. Those that want to see it legal will act in such a way and fight for that right. And this brings me back to the third question which you did not really answer, though it may have been an oversight...Given that the business of the ACLU is to fight cases which involve appeals to civil rights, why would they turn down NAMBLA which is appealing to civil rights?How is denigrating the ACLU for making that choice, not similar to criticizing a defense organization which specializes in medical malpractice suits for defending any specific doctor (even if openly despised) for a malpractice case?In this case I have shown, even if you disagree with whether it is going to be upheld, that the NAMBLA issue impacts 1st amendment issues beyond pedophilia literature. A ruling in one case may impact others by precedent. Actually I had already answered this question, and just did above once more, but let me repeat it... The ACLU takes on cases which involve the Bill or Rights. They take the stance of defending and enlarging the spectrum of rights. Their cases niether have to be popular nor "correct" in order to be part of the field they take cases in.They are not the moral police, nor the front for liberal thought (which should be obvious when they defend Nazis). They address any appeal to civil rights as encoded by the Bill of Rights.I guess it is fair to ask in any particular case whether it fits a general perception or idea of what the Bill of Rights say, that is are they fighting for a consistent interpretation of the Bill of Rights, but I don't see where there is a question of this in the case of NAMBLA. Do you see an inconsistency based on the cases they have taken?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well I'm glad you read my citation, now you must go back and understand what was being said. It was specifically noting that depicting children in sexually explicit scenes IS constitutionally protected.The problem is when depicting children doing such things will run counter to laws which prevent children from having sex, or being coerced to have sex.NY v Ferber set a standard for the court that cp laws were available based not on the nature of moral proscription of the depiction, but the manner in which the image was created and the expedience of making such images illegal in order to prevent the criminal activity inherent in using children to make those images.In the Ashcroft case the SC noted that the original appeal to expediency had now been violated as the gov't was overtly targeting material with no possibility of involving children in its construction and so involving a crime.In this and other recent decisions (where Justices went on to discuss issues of age, sex, and porn) some have noted there is also a discrepancy between national laws on such images and the actual AOCs of states. Thus cp laws have in fact gotten protection based on an appeal that kids are being used in the commision of a crime to make the images, when they really are not.I have already presented this point to you before, and do so again. If you are in a state where a 16 or 17 year old is considered to be of age for sexual activity and they make images of their sexual acts, this would be considered cp, but is that fair or logical? It certainly is inconsistent and raises questions about the definition of cp and its effects on stifling speech. Shouldn't a person who can legally have sex be able to communicate that sexuality through images?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

under certain circumstances, that is.not also that "depict" does not neccessarily mean that children themselves are having sex, or even that children are involved at all. that's why part b of that definition in title 18 was found to overbroad. it applies to things that are completely not child pornography.

---

אָרַח