andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) (12/09/85)
[You mean Canada isn't in the free world?] In article <1945@watdcsu.UUCP> dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) writes: >"And he won some scholarship to a fancy-dancy prep school up North..." >What makes it child porn is that a gay character is being described as >being of prep-school age. >The fact is there are actively gay men under the age of eighteen. Hold on thar! Sure there are, and also lots of actively straight men and women under 18. But if the _Blueboy_ article goes on to describe sexual acts performed by this person, then that particular sentence may have been the one which moved the article into the realm of "sex with someone under the age of consent". You *haven't* gone on to describe what else the article said. I think any article which glorifies sex with someone under the age of consent should be censored. I also think the age of consent used in the definition should be lowered; maybe that's all you're worried about, David. (I doubt it) [ p.s. I realize that some may think my epigraph below ironic. But I think we *can* come up with a definition of kiddie porn that includes works which glorify and promote sex with children, and excludes one of my favourite books of all time... ] [ p.p.s. I don't read nut.polemics, just posting there because that's the followup field ] --Jamie. ...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "And that is the only immortality that you and I may share, my Lolita"