On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 09:49:12AM -0700, John Young wrote:
> Isn't what is new here is that the man did not publish this material
> as was the material of Joyce, Miller, et al? Nobody saw it except
> him and the cop who discovered it. It was the Man who published,
> converted private scribblings into illegal material, not the man.
No, this isn't new. You didn't read my earlier message carefully.
Mere possession (not creation) of visual depictions of child
pornography has been a federal felony for at least a decade.
Someone who's a "collector" who did not publish the material would
be a felon.
Note I'm not defending the law, and there are plenty of problems with
the Ohio prosecution, but it is not something that folks here should
be particularly surprised about.
-Declan
