wrote:
funny their legal is no such thing as virtual kiddy porn
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/

There most certainly is such a thing as virtual kiddy porn. In the
Miller decision, the Supreme Court recognized that there was but didn't
directly address the legality of it.

The physical medium by which the porn is conveyed (hardcopy media,
digital media, etc.) is not the problem. The problem is HOW the porn
is created. In the case of child porn, real children are exploited in
the creation of the images. Children, unlike adults, are legally
considered incapable of deciding of their own free will to participate
in the creation of pornography. That makes creation of that kind of
child porn illegal under a host of criminal statutes.

Anime that portrays cartoon children engaged in sexual acts is not
child pornography by the legal definition. However, it is considered
to be such by most rational adults.

If you want to create virtual child porn there is no law (as of now)
that prohibits you from doing it. But there is also no law that says
anyone has to like it and also no law that says private individuals
have to assist you in its dissemination. If your ISP doesn't like it
they can terminate your service. You can take them to court but it's
doubtful that you would get anywhere. Judges have children, too.

wrote:

funny how the Jappnesse see it deferently being ther are about as many
of them as us your statement is a best ameriocontritic at worst plain
bigrotry

The Japanese can see it any way they want. Americans see it
differently. In certain African countries, compulsory clitoridectomies
of young women are considered normal and part of their tribal culture.
Americans see the practice as abhorrent. Different cultures interpret
things differently.


as do many of the far eastern cultures nor was it ever established
that children were being depicted youand other decided that it could
only b children that are dipcted by anime

I'll answer that as soon as you translate it into English.


it is your prevledge to dislike such materail I personaly don't care
for the stuff but I am not so judgemental as you et al

No, you would rather do it than look at it. Just don't do it around my
kids or I'll introduce you to my attorneys: Colt, Ruger, Beretta, Smith
& Wesson.


In theory Todd should be protected by th e courts increasing those
protections are breaking down in practice in theory those that have
been going after should be brought to trail themselves fo r conspricay
to stalk and harrass, not likely In practice

Again, translate that into English, please. I think you said that Todd
is protected by the courts. And he is, but only to the extent that he
is protected from censorship BY THE GOVERNMENT. If his ISP, which is a
private company, doesn't like what Todd is putting through their data
stream they have every right to pull the plug on his service.


but ti is amusing the way those that Atack Todd all hide their names
(with the exception of Robeson), and all (without exception sem to
have serious sexious issues fo their own


English, dammit, English! I suppose you were born with the name "an
old friend?"

wrote:

The Japanese can see it any way they want. Americans see it
differently.

and you are willig to immpose your views on everyont that is why many
people don't like americans

The reason many people don't like Americans is because of people like
you, Markie, who try to impose their silly, uninformed and illiterate
views on everyone. You and the rest of the Inferior Five have
irreparably trashed this newsgroup with your incessant flaming, and it
is being read by people in other countries. How do you think that
makes Americans look to the rest of the world? Not that you care,
sociopath.

wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

The Japanese can see it any way they want. Americans see it
differently.

and you are willig to immpose your views on everyont that is why many
people don't like americans

The reason many people don't like Americans is because of people like
you, Markie, who try to impose their silly, uninformed and illiterate
views on everyone. You and the rest of the Inferior Five have
irreparably trashed this newsgroup with your incessant flaming, and it
is being read by people in other countries. How do you think that
makes Americans look to the rest of the world? Not that you care,
sociopath.

Well said, but trying to talk sense to Mark is a waste of time. Mark is in a
different time zone altogether.

Jonathan wrote:

slow code stalker at large

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jonathan wrote:

slow code stalker at large
http://www.marksspamblog.blogspot.com/

Jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

The Japanese can see it any way they want. Americans see it
differently.

and you are willig to immpose your views on everyont that is why many
people don't like americans

The reason many people don't like Americans is because of people like
you, Markie, who try to impose their silly, uninformed and illiterate
views on everyone. You and the rest of the Inferior Five have
irreparably trashed this newsgroup with your incessant flaming, and it
is being read by people in other countries. How do you think that
makes Americans look to the rest of the world? Not that you care,
sociopath.

Well said, but trying to talk sense to Mark is a waste of time. Mark is in a
different time zone altogether.

Yeah, Markie's in the Twilight Zone.

wrote:
Wi

Markie want a cracker?

wrote:
wrote:

funny how the Jappnesse see it deferently being ther are about as many
of them as us your statement is a best ameriocontritic at worst plain
bigrotry

The Japanese can see it any way they want. Americans see it
differently. In certain African countries, compulsory clitoridectomies
of young women are considered normal and part of their tribal culture.
Americans see the practice as abhorrent. Different cultures interpret
things differently.


as do many of the far eastern cultures nor was it ever established
that children were being depicted youand other decided that it could
only b children that are dipcted by anime

I'll answer that as soon as you translate it into English.


it is your prevledge to dislike such materail I personaly don't care
for the stuff but I am not so judgemental as you et al

No, you would rather do it than look at it. Just don't do it around my
kids or I'll introduce you to my attorneys: Colt, Ruger, Beretta, Smith
& Wesson.


In theory Todd should be protected by th e courts increasing those
protections are breaking down in practice in theory those that have
been going after should be brought to trail themselves fo r conspricay
to stalk and harrass, not likely In practice

Again, translate that into English, please. I think you said that Todd
is protected by the courts. And he is, but only to the extent that he
is protected from censorship BY THE GOVERNMENT. If his ISP, which is a
private company, doesn't like what Todd is putting through their data
stream they have every right to pull the plug on his service.

The ISP removed me because they believed and was told by the
individuals who complainted that the material was "child pornography"
which it is not, The second problem is "obscenity" it has always been
ruled that only a court can deiced what is obscene, secondly the ISP
has individuals posting material on Adultfinders.com, blogs and other
places on the web which could be consider obscene, so what apply to one
person should apply for all, in this case it does not. Thirdly it is a
common practice amoung ISP to warn a User that they are violation of
their TOS, I recieved no such warning, which now can be consider a "bad
Business practice" since the vast majority of ISP's do warn their users
before removing them from the web. Fourth, the Courts has ruled in
Verizon V RIAA that a ISP doesn't have control of what's on a users
computer, and that and ISP is nothing more then a conduit.(In Verzion V
RIAA, the RIAA sued Verzion fro not handing over the names of
individuals who were sharing music on P2P networks. The Court ruled
that Verzion can't be held accountable for copyright infringement since
the material was on their users computer and not on directly on their
server . Verzion and ISP were nothing more then conduits, like the
phone company and had really no control over the content. ) The CDA
also protects internet service providers of libel for the content their
users put out. The General rule of thumb on the web is, if you don't
like what's on someone website then don't go there. Some of the
individuals visited the site long before complaining and had the chose
not to gom their if they are offended by it. But as for obscentiy goes
as the Supreme court stated "just because one person is offended by the
material doesn't not mean it need to be banned"


Todd N9OGL
OMEGA ONE RADIO
13.556.00 MHz LSB




but ti is amusing the way those that Atack Todd all hide their names
(with the exception of Robeson), and all (without exception sem to
have serious sexious issues fo their own


English, dammit, English! I suppose you were born with the name "an
old friend?"