From dmytrik@lglobal.com Sat Feb 24 09:15:49 1996 Xref: elastic can.general:36170 can.legal:6649 can.politics:48352 news.admin.censorship:4918 news.admin.net-abuse.misc:36499 tor.arts:720 tor.general:32653 Path: elastic!jaywon.pci.on.ca!ftn.net!aficom!revcan!webster.srv.gc.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.alt.net!newspost1.alt.net!usenet From: dmytrik@lglobal.com (Quirk) Newsgroups: can.general,can.legal,can.politics,alt.politics,tor.general,tor.arts,alt.censorship,alt.censorship.canada.dumb,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.censorship,alt.wired,alt.sex.stories Subject: An Exploration of the Legality of Writing Kiddie Porn Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 21:43:09 GMT Organization: Idiosyntactix Tactical Hyperbole (tm) Toronto. Lines: 192 Message-ID: <312ce2d6.14025538@news.alt.net> Reply-To: dmytrik@lglobal.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/16.182 !!! Warning the following article contains description of graphic !!! !!! sexuality -- please stop reading now !!! _______________________________________________________________________ An Exploration of the Legality of Writing Kiddie Porn By Dmytri Kleiner -- Quirk With Excerpts From The Sweetharts pt.II - 3 of 3 By The Free Citizen Excerpts and essay purposefully blended and not obviously marked -- read the whole thing or read nothing. Freely repost this article anywhere, in it's entirety. _______________________________________________________________________ In Canada we have laws against the WRITING of child pornography. Laws against words. ""OOHHhhhh," Marissa screamed as he entered her. She had never felt anything so big in her sixteen-year old pussy." Like some ancient mystical incantation -- the words hold special power, the power to transform a group of letters into illegal property. To transform a piece of paper or an electric file into a contraband. "Umm. God," grunted Mike. "Love this sixteen year old pussy. You little sluts." The word "sixteen" is really the one with the alchemic properties, as the rest of the phrase would not identify the age of the fictional participants. Marissa's tounge licked over Ashley's wet clit, but the older girl soon leaned back, forcing Marissa's tounge inside her pussy hole. If you do not actually state the age, then it's not illegal, but the fictional characters could still be underage could they not? They could be SECRETLY under aged fictional characters. He stuffed Staci's pussy forcefully as the teen began to cum again. But the word teen establishes the age, and this is illegal. So if you imagine the characters to be underage, even if the work does not explicitly say the age -- shouldn't this be illegal too? The words may make them SEEM underage. Maybe a law should be passed that REQUIRES the ACTUAL age of these FICTIONAL characters to be explicitly stated within the material. Just to be safe. Marissa was moaning and slurping, being fucked hard as she tounged the pussy on her face. Marissa felt Ashley's juices running down her cheeks and neck. But even if the age of majority was clearly stated -- the FICTIONAL characters could by LYING about their age. If we could not PROVE that the FICTIONAL character was ACTUALLY of the age of majority then this would still be illegal. Because the writing of child pornography is illegal. Illegal because of what? No ACTUAL children are involved, this is fiction, I know it's hard to believe -- but the characters are not real, they have no real feelings, no emotions, they can not be exploited. "Ohhhh. Ohhhh god. Your dick is so big. OHHH - you're fucking me," she squirmed. "Yes OHHHH. Fuck me with that big dick. UMMMHHH." Because it's offensive? Many things are offensive, I find censorship offensive. You can't always guess what will offend and sometimes you MUST offend to make a point -- to get a person's attention. In order to justify illegality -- harm must be demonstrated. What exactly is the harm? Is the universal child of the subconscious harmed? Does this sound like a sacred cow? Like laws against blasphemy? It felt so good - the teen loved feeling Chad's big cock fill her pussy up while she stuffed Mike into her mouth. She began to moan and buck her hips wildly- cumming again as Mike squeezed her nipples hard - forcing her to mouth fuck him. He pumped his cock in and out of her mouth quickly and mercilessly, not even letting up as she came. Some go so far as to say that this sort of writing will encourage child molestation. But who knows what may cause child molestation. A child molester is a criminal, and a mentally unstable one at that. Are we to construct our society around the needs of the mentally unstable? My God, what a slut I am, she thought. How can I be sucking off these two guys at once? She was so horny though, her guilt didn't stop her - she eagerly switched between the two boys' swollen cocks as they gropped at her tits and wet pussy. She really did love to suck cock - her pussy felt like it was on fire as she moved her mouth over one - then the other. An essay that condemns kiddie porn could not be written WITHOUT making reference to minors engaging in sexual activity. The law itself MUST make reference to the sexual activity of minors in order to make it illegal. Could a mentally unstable pedophile not derive inspiration from these things too? Maybe reading the section of the law that outlaws kiddie porn could inspire him? Ashley whispered to Chad,"Look how Marissa loves your cock. I'm jealous." Chad motioned his head at Ashley, who's eyes lit up. She immediately climbed on the bed and sat on Marissa's unsuspecting face. Marissa practically choked, her mouth having been opened wide moaning. She was so turned on though - nothing mattered. She stuck out her red tounge and Ashley began to rock her tight ass over Marissa's mouth. In fact -- maybe the demented pedophile would begin to attend court hearings to hear descriptions of child pornography and child molestation before beginning his campaign of terror. He could start collecting newspaper clippings. Or maybe it could simply be the bare butt of a baby in a diaper commercial that gets the whole thing going. Ted Bundy collected pictures of cheerleaders, truckloads of them. Girls. Bright Outfits. Pom-Poms. No Nudity. Then Mike leaned back and stood still - Marissa began to do all the work. She moved her hips and ass back and fourth quickly on the hard cock, feeling it slide deep into her pussy and then out again. You never know what will inspire the insane -- that's why we call them insane. There is no rational case against the writing of kiddie porn. There is no rational reason why there should be laws against words. Laws against words are immoral and a violation of freedom of speech. The violation of freedom of speech is an invitation to tyranny. "All fear of 'offensive' speech is bourgeois and reactionary. Historically, profane or bawdy language was common in both the upper and the lower classes, who lived together in rural areas amid the untidy facts of nature. Notions of propriety and decorum come to the fore in urbanized periods ruled by an expanding middle class, which is obsessed with cleanliness, respectability, and conformism." -- Camile Paglia, From "Language and the Left," in The Advocate (March 7, 1995) ..... Dmytri Kleiner -- Quirk P.S. Oh, Nevermind. dmytrik@lglobal.com http://www.lglobal.com/~dmytrik "Gravity lets (c) 1996 Idiosyntactix (tm) Toronto you down" From black@passport.ca Sun Feb 25 02:06:53 1996 Xref: elastic can.general:36237 news.admin.net-abuse.misc:36565 ont.general:29889 tor.arts:724 tor.general:32729 tor.news:1021 Path: elastic!jaywon.pci.on.ca!ftn.net!news1.toronto.fonorola.net!news1.toronto.istar.net!news.toronto.istar.net!istar.net!infoshare!passport.ca!news From: Jim Black Newsgroups: tor.general,torfree.genreal,tor.news,tor.arts,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,alt.censorship,alt.censorship.canada.dumb,can.general,ont.general,alt.wired,alt.artcom Subject: Re: Sex and Shit--Not the Same Thing (was: REPOST: A call for the resignation of Mike Anderson Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 23:55:43 -0500 Organization: Passport Lines: 86 Message-ID: <312BF74F.1257@passport.ca> References: <4gdugg$nni@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <312B0F02.231@interlog.com> <4gfavn$hh3@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: pm1-19.passport.ca Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I) Mark, I think you're my hero...I'll get back to later on that one. Mark S. Bilk wrote: > > In article <4gfavn$hh3@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, Rosa Amarillo wrote: > >In article <312B0F02.231@interlog.com>, iliask@interlog.com says... > > > >>Spare us your morals Rosa. Censorhsip hurts anyone with half a brain and > >>an opinion of their own. > > >Porn appeals to those with shit for brains and does nothing to enhance > >the growing experiences of the young and the young at heart. Porn > >is the excrement of shit-for-brains minds. The general public, and > >especially children, must be shielded from exposure to it just as they > >are shielded from exposure to regular sewage. MOST parents > >wouldn't want their child playing near an open cess pool. Why would > >ANY parent want their child exposed to a pornographer's filth? > > > >If that's too moralistic for you, then you are the one with the problem. > > > >If you enjoy porn, you'll really enjoy a visit to a proctologist. > > Rosa Amarillo > > Rosa, you treat us to a rich variety of fecal imagery: > > shit > > excrement > > shit-for-brains > > sewage > > cess pool > > filth > > proctologist > > But nowhere do you explain exactly *how* descriptions of sexual > activity are in any way harmful to children. You repeatedly > insist that: > > o Such descriptions are (somehow) equal to feces, and that > > o Therefore children must be protected from them. > > Are you unable to distinguish between the sexual and excretory > functions of your own body? Were these fecal epithets used by > your parents to discourage you from giving yourself sexual pleasure > or from enjoying it with others when you were a child? > > Even people who enjoy anal sex often rinse out the rectum before- > hand. What they like is the pleasure and the closeness, not the > smelly brown stuff. There is really not much connection between > sex and shit. > > Hopefully, most of us expel some shit at least once a day. There's > nothing evil about it. If we were smart, we'd process it for > fertilizer. It's plant food; that's how animals and plants live > together on this planet--we and they mutually exchange nitrogen > by eating, shitting, and root absorption, and we exchange oxygen > and carbon by breathing and leaf absorption. > > Without shit there would be no animal life on this planet. > > Children put out shit like everybody else. It's really harmful to > tell them their shit is evil and nasty. They know there's more > inside them where that came from. Telling them that they are full > of nasty stuff messes them up severely, as does telling them that > their sexual feelings are bad and sinful. > > Rosa, that is probably what your parents did to you. Try to > understand why you feel the way you do. Nobody is born thinking > and feeling that way--it has to be taught to them. Try to > imagine how you would feel about sexuality if you hadn't been > taught like that. If you can do it, you will be much happier. > > o\O/o\O/o\O/o The most important book in the world! o\O/o\O/o\O/o > _The Chalice and the Blade_, by Riane Eisler, 1988, $13, ISBN > 0-06-250-289-1, HarperSanFrancisco. An overview of the archaeo- > logical work of Marija Gimbutas and others. It explains the > macro-history of human culture, and shows how domination, patri- > archy, and war result from cultural programming, not human nature. > \v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\v/^\ From elastic!lethe!geac!reptiles.org!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!flesh.fly.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!mail2news Sun Jul 14 19:49:41 1996 Xref: elastic can.general:50805 can.infohighway:7802 can.legal:9098 ont.general:46377 soc.culture.canada:29523 tor.general:48676 Path: elastic!lethe!geac!reptiles.org!hookup!news.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!flesh.fly.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!mail2news From: baal@nym.jpunix.com Newsgroups: torfree.general,tor.general,mtl.general,van.general,ont.general,bc.general,can.infohighway,can.legal,can.general,soc.culture.usenet,alt.news.media,soc.culture.canada,io.general,eye.general,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.cpsr.talk Subject: Kiddie Porn Witchhunt (long) Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 14:19:02 -0500 Organization: mail2news@anon.lcs.mit.edu Lines: 294 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <199607101919.OAA18992@alpha.jpunix.com> References: <31db3548.17224920@nnrp.tor.hookup.net> <4rur64$42u@milo.vcn.bc.ca> Reply-To: Baal@nym.jpunix.com NNTP-Posting-Host: anon.lcs.mit.edu X-Plug: JPUnix.Com http://www.jpunix.com/ Complaints-To: mix-admin@anon.lcs.mit.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > From: sl@whiskey.wimsey.com (Stuart Lynne) > > Subject: Re: LAWYER AS LAWMAKER COP JUDGE & JURY > Date: 10 Jul 1996 08:52:33 GMT > Message-ID: <4rvr0i$e2j@wolfe.wimsey.com> > References: <31db3548.17224920@nnrp.tor.hookup.net> <4rur64$42u@milo.vcn.bc.ca> [snip] In article <4rvr0i$e2j@wolfe.wimsey.com> sl@whiskey.wimsey.com (Stuart Lynne), said: > Unfortunately it's not litigation we worry about but having to defend > against a criminal prosecution either at the corporate or personal > level. > ISP's every where would welcome guidlines from our legistlators. Don't hold your breath, eh? > Simply because if we know what the law says we will follow it and lobby > to have it changed if it is too draconian. Unfortunately we are in the > position of having a vague suspicion that we might be breaking the law > with no guidelines to follow. The police and prosecutors LOVE the ambiguity in the law. The idea is to produce the exact kind of reaction we've seen from iSTAR--"when in doubt, cut it out." The same type of strategy has been observed in a variety of jurisdictions--i.e. keep the law vague and amorphous; keep 'em off balance. I think the basic idea is to instill such fear into people, that they'll self-censor, which in many cases will be far more encompassing than what the law provides for. I've seen letters written by sysops in B.C. to the B.C. Attorney-General, trying in vain to get some guidelines about what is acceptable and what is not. The reply they got back was, essentially, "See your lawyer." As far as 'lobbying to have the law changed if it is too draconian' goes, where have you been for the last 3 years, regarding the so-called "kiddie porn" section of the Criminal Code, Section 163.1? This Section of the Criminal Code is so overbroad, and so all-encompassing, that it criminalizes even the written word, if it "... advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years..." (See the full text of this Section at the end of this posting.) Frankly, there is relatively little point in lobbying to have this odious legislation changed--all that will happen is that you will be labelled as a `supporter of child pornography.' The rationale for this legislation--the protection of children--is nothing less than a farce! How does banning the writing (or even *possession*) of fictional stories protect childen? No children are abused during this process. The same thing goes for so-called artificial child pornography--children are not abused if one uses paint software or even charcoal and a sketchpad to draw images from the imagination--but yet, in Canada, these are criminal offences. Look at the ordeal of artist Eli Langer--he was prosecuted under Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code, and he is no abuser of children! (Fortunately, he was acquitted.) Joseph Pecciarich of Mississauga was not so lucky. He wrote fictional stories and created pornographic images using children's pictures from catalogs and some editing software. He was *convicted* -- in fact, he was the first person convicted -- under Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code. (The Judge who sentenced him gave him a suspended sentence and placed him on probation, largely due to the fact the he has absolutely no history whatsoever of abusing children.) Then there is the case of the 2 Fergus, Ontario BBS sysops. From: The Guelph Mercury Tuesday, October 24, 1995 page 1 Kid porn man cries in court by Scott Tracey A Fergus man charged this summer with distributing child pornography on a computer bulletin board wept in court Monday after pleading guilty.[1] The 21-year-old man -- who cannot be named to protect the identity of his 17-year-old brother charged under the Young Offenders Act -- admitted the sexually explicit stories were in his personal bulletin board when they were discovered by a Guelph resident.[2] [What was most interesting was that an official O.P.P. press-release named _both_ brothers, and gave their home address. Funny that the Young Offenders Act didn't cover this, eh?] The material came to the attention of authorities after a Guelph man inadvertently downloaded them July 20 and phoned the police.[3] The bulletin board was traced via a phone number to a home in Fergus which the brothers share with their two parents. "The vast majority of the material involved a person who was under 18 years of age involved in explicit sexual activity", Crown attorney Judith MacDonald told the court, adding only written material was ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ seized. ^^^^^^ The stories depicted youths involved in intercourse and fellatio. ^^^^^^^ [snip] Judge Marietta Roberts said the man's legal difficulties are a result of allowing a computer bulletin board to accept information for him while he is not present."[4] "It's certainly an indication that we don't have control of our own lives when we allow certain machines to take over for us", she told the man, who began weeping when told to stand for sentencing.[5] Roberts agreed to a joint submission by Forster and MacDonald that a conditional discharge be granted. She placed the man on probation for 12 months, during which time he is prohibited from operating or having access to a personal computer bulletin board. Charges against his younger brother were withdrawn by the crown. -30- N.B.: Notes above in square brackets [ ] added by Baal. Notes: (opinions added by djones, not part of original article) [1] All charges against the older Fergus man were dropped, except the sole charge of "possession", to which he pleaded guilty. He did *not* plead guilty to distribution. [2] The accused acknowledged that the text files were present on his computer when the police seized it. It is an important distinction to note that he did *not* admit that he had any knowledge of the content of these text files. This relates to the legal concept of "mens rea", or "guilty mind". [3] There is speculation that the man who "discovered" the files on the BBS did not actually stumble across them inadvertently, but was systematically visiting all local BBS's, hunting for "bad stuff". The question also arises of exactly *who* uploaded the text files in question. These questions may forever remain unanswered. [4] Judge Roberts almost consents that the accused never even had knowledge of the contents of the text file, which would be necessary for a criminal conviction. Clearly, if an automatic machine "accepts" a text file, the computer's owner does not automatically become aware of the contents. One wonders what Judge Roberts would say if a dirty magazine was found inside the front door of someone's house. "This person is guilty of having a mail slot", perhaps. The mind boggles. [5] It is important to note that, although there was an agreement for the accused to go on probation, there was *no* conviction. Given the significant possibility of "reasonable doubt" as to whether the accused man had "guilty knowledge" of the contents of these text files, it is not at all clear the prosecution could have gotten a conviction if they let the case proceed to trial. This Fergus man, faced with a lengthy and expensive criminal trial, with an uncertain outcome, made a pragmatic decision. [*warning* very opinionated editorialized follows, ...] In my own opinion, this man was persuaded by circumstances to plead guilty to a crime that (a) he did not commit, and (b) a bizarre crime (possession of text files) under s.163.1, which, in my (arrogant for a non-lawyer) opinion, is unconstitutional and will not survive a Charter challenge. > Kind of like driving down a road with no posted limit. Just signs that > say "caution speed limit enforced by radar" with the local constabulary > able to pull you over for going over whatever they decide is the correct > speed at *that* point in time. Their claim that you are speeding might > never hold up in court, but you still waste time and money defending > yourself against the prosecution. This is an excellent analogy. 1024/A21829FD 1995/07/10 PGP public key on keyservers Fingerprint: 5A 64 DB DB 2C FE C0 FE 63 A7 A3 59 58 DA A6 EA ======================================================================= - From the Criminal Code of Canada: 163.1 DEFINITION OF "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY" DEFINITION OF "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY" ... / Making child pornography / distribution or sale of child pornography / Possession of child pornography / Defence / Defences / Other provisions apply. 163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means, (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years; or (b) any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of eighteen years that would be an offence under this Act. (2) Every person who makes, prints, publishes or possesses for the purpose of publication any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. (3) Every person who imports, distributes, sells or possesses for the purpose of distribution or sale any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. (4) Every person who possesses any child pornography is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction. (5) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (2) in respect of a visual representation that the accused believed that a person shown in the representation that is alleged to constitute child pornography was or was depicted as being eighteen years of age or more unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of that person and took all reasonable steps to ensure that, where the person was eighteen years of age or more, the representation did not depict that person as being under the age of eighteen years. (6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3), or (4), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose. (7) Subsections 163(3) to (5) apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, with respect to an offence under subsection (2), (3) or (4). [1993, c.46, s.2.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: cp850 iQCVAgUBMePcS5R7IeiiGCn9AQGJgQQAgZjr0nqpZ0vMl/0qsYNCDTHrrN6yKN8q 9wnKB4ZGisH0yzIz76fhCOCNB7eTU5NeLnbH+6lA7TDvfDrmM+rQyzgD7ZPee9IT E5jIAyoiwpVceoSXDMeGPaU+AwI8PYZNwJJDhhUKGaRhoHg41S8EWa5adsTvQ2NN rmMDzsir1wY= =kCge -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----