First Amendment Doesn't Protect Virtual Kiddie Porn

The Claremont Institute ^ | July 31, 2000 | John C. Eastman

[aconservaguy]

are there any benefits of protecting "virtual porn" (or "kiddie porn" or pornography as a whole) under the First Amendment? are there any concrete benefits to such material?

[general_re]

There's a simple way to avoid it all - don't take federal money. If you don't like The Man's strings, don't take The Man's money.

[jwalsh07]

By the way, the 14th amendment does not supercede the 10th. They do overlap but states have been making and enforcing their own obscenity laws for many years now. What is obscene in Kansas may not be in Nevada. Thats freedom General, not a 14th amendment that centralizes power 9 black robes.

[jwalsh07]

There's a simple way to avoid it all - don't take federal money. If you don't like The Man's strings, don't take The Man's money.

That dog doesn't hunt General. You are arguing that virtual child porn is a right guaranteed by the first amendment and the 14th amendment. So is the ACLU, funding be damned.

[general_re]

Probably not, but the problem is that there's no clear way to draw a line separating this stuff from other fictional depictions that are generally considered acceptable. Under a strong reading of the law that was struck down, Romeo and Juliet could have become illegal...

[jwalsh07]

Under a strong reading of the law that was struck down, Romeo and Juliet could have become illegal...

Which would be ridiculous and truly violate the first amendment. But Americans are capapble of nuance and when what seems to be a gray area to some is encountered, then the feds should steer clear and defer to the states and localities.

[general_re]

By the way, the 14th amendment does not supercede the 10th.

Where they conflict, it does, WRT to the BoR. Black-letter law.

They do overlap but states have been making and enforcing their own obscenity laws for many years now. What is obscene in Kansas may not be in Nevada.

Only as a result of SCOTUS's "community standards" doctrine, a doctrine which is increasingly on shaky ground in the wired world.

[jwalsh07]

What is obscene in Kansas may not be in Nevada.

Do you object to this notion?

[jwalsh07]

Sorry, gotta run.

[Khepera]

Sorry no common sense or logic allowed.

[general_re]

I'm arguing that free speech is a right guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. That means tolerating speech that many will find offensive.

I repeat - if you don't like the man's strings, don't take his money. Just because you don't like those choices doesn't mean you don't have a choice...

[general_re]

But Americans are capapble of nuance and when what seems to be a gray area to some is encountered, then the feds should steer clear and defer to the states and localities.

In a perfect world, sure. In the imperfect world in which we live, are you really willing to bet your free-speech rights on the notion that no administration will ever abuse vague laws? Will you be that trusting of the second Clinton administration?

[DoughtyOne]

Well there you have it.  The fate of the republic hinges on the "no rule" clause of the first amendment when it comes to showing the following:

Near real looking animation's of:

Sex with an infant by an adult.
Rape of an infant by an adult.
Sodomy of an infant by an adult.
The genitalia of infants and young children.
Penetration of children by foreign objects.
The depiction of forced sex and pain inflicted on young children.
Snuff films incorporating depiction's of sex and violent death involving young children.

I find that you don't really need to argue with people to defeat their lunacy.  Just let them talk long enough and they'll do that for themselves.

The Thomas Jefferson I envision wasn't worried about blocking the proliferation of such materials.  Neither am I.

[Houmatt]

Show me the victim in these cases.

What cases are you talking about??

[Houmatt]

I'm arguing that free speech is a right guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. That means tolerating speech that many will find offensive.

Free speech may be guaranteed, but it is not absolute. There are numerous instances where exceptions have been created, either by legislation, or by legal precedent.

Furthermore, while we do not have a right not to be offended, that does not give a free pass to the manufacture and distribution of material that is patently obscene.

A case in point is Mike Diana, a Florida writer/artist who, a decade ago, created a self-published magazine called "Boiled Angel." One particular issue, number 8, contained articles and stories so shocking and disturbing he was once considered a suspect in the Gainesville slayings. While that was eventually dropped, he was subsequently tried and convicted of creating and distributing obscene material. Despite the unusual harshness of his sentence (which included no drawing of any kind, which would be checked periodically, and no contact with anyone under the age of 18), it was nevertheless upheld on appeal.

Therefore, regardless of what you assert, the fact remains free speech is not absolute.

Period.

[general_re]

Who is harmed by these photographs? If you read Ferber, the rationale was explicit - child pornography may be banned because its production involves the victimization of children, and its distribution continues the harm to them. So, using that reasoning, who's being harmed in cases of "virtual" porn?

[general_re]

Therefore, regardless of what you assert, the fact remains free speech is not absolute.

I never claimed otherwise. Now, why not craft for me a standard that criminalizes virtual child pornography, while at the same time not criminalizing Romeo and Juliet? How, specifically, do you intend for the law to distinguish between the two?

[Little Bush]

It's similar to magazines adjusting the pics to make people look more attractive. Sets an impossible goal: even the models in mags aren't "attractive" enough to just pose.

I don't care what the friggin' Constitution says or what the law states, nobody should be selling/showing child pornography EVER. Obviously the lunies viewing this have yet to figure out their own identities. And anyone viewing and/or showing this stuff should be forced into prison where big bubba/bubbette will show him/her what it's like to be sexually exploited.

[DoughtyOne]

To: Houmatt

Therefore, regardless of what you assert, the fact remains free speech is not absolute.

I never claimed otherwise. Now, why not craft for me a standard that criminalizes virtual child pornography, while at the same time not criminalizing Romeo and
Juliet? How, specifically, do you intend for the law to distinguish between the two?

57 posted on 7/16/02 8:01 PM Pacific by general_re

How do you equate the romantic encounter between two consenting individuals of approximate age to that of a grown man violating an infant?  Further how do you equate the utilization of pseudo-infants through art in pseudo-sexual snuff films to that of a young woman committing suicide?  There is no act of murder or sexual abuse in Romeo and Juliet?  Are you even familiar with the story?  You don't feel that a law could be written differentiating between the two?  Seriously?

What about the Romeo or Juliet story entices an adult to sodemize a child of five, or for that matter have any sexual relations with such a child in any manner?  What about the Romeo or Juliet story suggests the murder of the victim of a violent sex crime?  Perhaps you can explain all this for us.

Frankly you should try to offer up a better example.  And even if this example was valid, you can count me as one individual who would give up all the Lolita, Romeo and Juliet and other stories involving underage women if it saved even one young child or infant from sexual exploitation, violent abuse or death.

While I hate this type of a statement, with regard to this issue I'm dead serious.  What that five year old little girl went through I wouldn't wish on any living thing.

[general_re]

I notice that you have quite a lot to say, but somehow you never get around to actually proposing a standard for a law that would differentiate between the two, and never really do more than sort of elliptically suggest that it ought to be easy to do. If it's so easy, I'm very interested to hear it.

Frankly you should try to offer up a better example. And even if this example was valid, you can count me as one individual who would give up all the Lolita, Romeo and Juliet and other stories involving underage women if it saved even one young child or infant from sexual exploitation, violent abuse or death.

How many of your freedoms will you give up to save two lives? Ten? How many lives would be saved if none of us had the freedom to drive a car? 40,000 a year or so? Ready to give up that freedom to save all those lives? I mean, if you're willing to abandon an entire genre of fiction to save one life, surely not driving is not too much of a sacrifice to save 40,000 lives, right? How many lives would be saved by all of us giving up all our freedoms?

People die as a result of your freedom every hour of every day of every week. Your freedom comes with a price that is paid in blood, and frankly, I find it disrespectful to those who pay that price that you are so willing to cast it aside. People die for freedom all the time - that's what makes it so precious, and something to be cherished, and something to be protected, and not something to be cast aside because you think we can have freedom without paying any price for it. Let me assure you, we cannot.

Freedom isn't free, in more ways than one...