On 5/4/07, Mark Wagner <carnildo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
You might wish to look at [[Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition]].
Child porn is protected free speech so long as no actual children were
involved in making it.
I know of that case (it is of interest since it is a clear difference
between US and UK law in the area of free speach). Argument of
definitions. If I call something child porn I mean children were
involved. Otherwise I would probably call it something like lolicon.
--
geni