Re: Additional thought on Crocker's Laws

David Lubkin (
Fri, 22 Oct 1999 14:03:49 -0400

Phil Osborn wrote:

>Am I being paranoid. Perhaps not enuf. Consider that the anti-kiddie-port
>sections of the CDA specifically, as I recall, include ANY depiction of
>child sexuality. This includes - and there have been prosecutions on this
>basis - comic art, furry art, etc., in which children obviously were not
>employed. For that matter, the same kind of software that can age or un-age
>a person's face could just as easilly do the same for the entire body. You
>could digitize Deep Throat and run it through frame by frame and end up with
>90 year olds having sex - or 9 year olds.

There are many reasons to object to this law. My own core objection is that it is effectively punishing people for their thoughts, rather than their actions. (Thou shalt not have erotic thoughts about children.)

I would like to see a sharp change in our judicial system away from differentiating offenses on the basis of intent or premeditation. If I murder you, why does it matter whether I planned it ahead of time? Are you any more or less dead?

Similarly, I object to laws against drunk driving. The offense should be "impaired driving" or "reckless endangerment". If I hit you with my car, you are just as injured whether I am impaired because I was drinking, I'm stoned, I have a bad cold, or I just broke up with my girlfriend.

And why is conspiracy a crime? Why is "conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor" a felony? || Unreasonable Software, Inc. || a trademark of USI:

> > > > > B e u n r e a s o n a b l e .