Tatsaechliche Begebenheiten

[Heiko Recktenwald <UZS106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>]

Auf den im netpol ausgebreiteten Streit um den Schutz von email
durch das StGB, als ob die email sonst schutzlos waere, gehe ich nicht
noch mal ein, aber zu dem schoenen Thame "tatsaechliche Begebenheiten"
und internationale Abkommen vielleicht dies, frisch aus der Mailbox
und wie immer anonymisiert:







Subject: Re: Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996

A bit more from the September 30, 1996 Congressional
Record (142 Cong Rec S 11886), Senator Biden, ranking
minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Biden said that "the appears to be standard, which does
not in any way involve an actual child in the creation of
child pornography, will not survive the inevitable
constitutional challenge to this legislation.  My view is
shared, among others, by Harvard professor Frederick
Schauer who ... expressed the opinion that the appears
to be standard ... would most probably fail the Ferber
test.... That is why I introduced an amendment ... which
would make it a crime to create a visual depiction that
makes it look like an identifiable minor is engaging in
sexually explicit conduct, whether or not the child
ever actually engaged in the conduct."  Biden also intro-
duced a 'severability' clause, so that if the appears to
be standard is found unconstitutional, the rest of the
law remains intact.  His amendment was accepted and
the current law reflects this.  The appears to standard
was not, however, removed from the bill, so it remains
to be challenged.

>'child pornography' means any visual depiction, including any
>    photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated
>    image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical,
>    or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where-
>          "(A) or
>          "(B)  or
>          "(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or
>        modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in
>        sexually explicit conduct; or

Clause (D) appears to criminalize the advertising of, say, a
cookware catalogue or corporate annual report, as child pornography.

>          "(D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented,
>        described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the
>        impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of
>        a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

The law does provide for an "affirmative defense for
material depicting sexually explicit conduct where the
material was produced using actual persons engaging in
sexually explicit conduct and each such person was an
adult at the time the material was produced, provided
the material has not been pandered as child pornography."