Spam Daily News <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote
> From Spam Daily News
> All pornography in the US is now effectively classified as child
> pornography, unless providers can prove the ages of everyone taking
> SOURCE: The Register; Wired; Washington Blade
> Copyright 2005 Spam Daily
IMHO, the way this is presented it has the feel of an "urban legand".
Exactly what rule, regulation or statute is being referenced here?
Have any of the sources been verified? Even if they have, are they
While this is somewhat interesting (if true), how is it (directly)
related to spam?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: It is directly related to spam because
of the _huge_ amounts of pornography -- much of it involving children
-- which is in email each day. Whether it is a 'joe job' or a real
'honest' spammer sending it does not matter. Its still child porn
being emailed around the net. As for verification, the two gay
publications/web sites quoted i.e. Washington Blade and http://gay.com
are both well known and highly respected gay publications, both the
net version and in their paper editions. I am just beginning to get
familiar with 'Spam Daily' at the present time. And whatever you may
think of http://yahoo.com and http://msn.com and their whorish ways
where their respective 'Messenger' and 'matchmaking' programs are
concerned, you probably would agree they are legitimate.
A number of years ago, under President Clinton's first administration
as memory serves me, Congress did pass a law requiring 'adult'
magazines to keep records for examination by authorties of all persons
whose images and likenesses were displayed in the magazine. In June of
this year, 'someone' in Our Nation's (drug and crime-infested) Capitol
had the bright idea that the aforemetioned law should apply not only
to the print media, but to internet media as well. I think it was
about the time the young man mentioned elsewhere in this issue --
Justin Berry -- started talking to federal investigators about his
internet exploits. Any of our Washington DC lawyer/readers here want
to examine the federal code for the exact line numbers, etc? I know
on my own blog http://ptownson/blogspot.com the only picture I have
is a .jpg of myself, although I am told my tin foil hat (as the crabby
scientist among us requires of me) makes me look a lot younger, but
certainly older than 18, but I have seen some other Google Blogs which
are not so -- err - modest as my own. PAT]