[LINK] why calm, rational thought is required....

[Craig Sanders]

i remember having a brief argument on LINK a year or so ago about
the mindless hysteria over "child pornography on the net" and how,
IMO, there was no need for over-reaction via ill-considered draconian
legislation.

here's a good example of why:

http://news.com.com/2102-1030_3-6157857.html?tag=st.util.print


sure, children and teenagers need to be protected from exploitation
by adults. they don't need to be protected from their own consensual
relationships with each other, especially not when they're 16 & 17 years
old.



i still think most of the anti-child-porn legislation is just using the
child-porn issue as cover for draconian over-regulation of the
net....laws have been passed that wouldn't have a hope of being accepted
by the public if it weren't for this highly emotive issue.

(and that, IMO, is a good way of telling bad law from good law - is the
bill an emotional, knee-jerk response?)

AFAICT, most such legislation has been passed according to the following
"logic":

1. we must do *something* about child porn on the net
2. *this* is something 
3. therefore we MUST do *this*.




what really gets me is the following excerpt from the majority opinion in the
case: "Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may
be done to these minors' careers or personal lives."

huh? what about the *actual* damage to the minors' careers and personal
lives by having child pornography convictions recorded against them and,
presumably, listing on sex-offender registries for the rest of their
lives? wherever they go, whatever they do, they're stuck with the label
of "child pornographer". forever.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

Currently listening to: Entheogenic - Spaced (Shulman Remix)

What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?  Judging from realistic simulations
involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we can assume it will
be pretty bad.
		-- Dave Barry