Jimbo sputtered: > > > The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives > > > the act. > > > > Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the > act does not > > require outlawing the speech. > > No they are not. You can't make the picture > without commiting the act. A not-so-clever straw man. "Making" the picture is not the speech in question, Duh. Distributing the picture is. And you can distribute the picture, without committing the underlying act yourself. > If you could, it wouldn't be 'porno'... As I said (and Jimbo ignored), porn is not illegal, per se, only obscenity. Perhaps that is a distinction without a difference, but that's the way the laws work. S a n d y
