Yes I found that too. In the latest stupid over at lj biz, I can never get the communities to make pretty pictures like the users, Burr says that particular Ashcroft vs the Free Speech Coalition decision 2002 was...
"Some people have noted a Supreme Court case from a couple of years ago striking computer-generated images from the definition of child pornography and asked whether, as a result, drawings of children in sexual situations can be considered illegal. The answer is, yes, in some cases. Congress reacted to the Supreme Court's decision in that case by changing the obscenity laws to put back what the Supreme Court struck down from the child pornography laws."
I asked him for a source on that one.
spike Do you know what he is talking about there? Cuz I don't.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-04 11:46 pm (UTC)Yes I found that too.
In the latest stupid over at lj biz, I can never get the communities to make pretty pictures like the users, Burr says that particular Ashcroft vs the Free Speech Coalition decision 2002 was...
"Some people have noted a Supreme Court case from a couple of years ago striking computer-generated images from the definition of child pornography and asked whether, as a result, drawings of children in sexual situations can be considered illegal. The answer is, yes, in some cases. Congress reacted to the Supreme Court's decision in that case by changing the obscenity laws to put back what the Supreme Court struck down from the child pornography laws."
I asked him for a source on that one.
spike
Do you know what he is talking about there?
Cuz I don't.