Supreme Court strikes down ban on virtual child pornography

Associated Press ^ | 4-16-02

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban on virtual child pornography Tuesday, ruling that the First Amendment protects pornography or other sexual images that only appear to depict real children engaged in sex.

The 6-3 ruling is a victory for both pornographers and legitimate artists such as moviemakers, who argued that a broad ban on simulated child sex could make it a crime to depict a sex scene like those in the recent movies "Traffic" or "Lolita."

[zarf]

Good decision. One small step against BIG GOVERNMENT and THE MAN.

[ffusco]

and more kiddie porn, yum (sarcasm)

[Lazamataz]

I am somehow troubled by this ruling. I know that it does not actually hurt a real child to have a virtual image of child porn, and I know there is a really fine line as to appearing to be a child and actually being one -- some 12 year olds looking like 21 and some 21 year olds looking like 12 and all -- but damn, something is just wrong here, and I cannot put my finger on it.

[Timesink]

Thank God. This would have been the first step towards government censorship of all sorts of things that had nothing at all to do with child porn. (And the left-wing "for the children!" psychos take note: Real child porn remains as illegal as it ever was.)

[Timesink]

but damn, something is just wrong here, and I cannot put my finger on it.

Well, obviously it's creepy to think of anyone getting their kicks off fake child porn too, even if it doesn't involve an actual child. I think that's what you're feeling.

[Joan912]

What is the difference between virtual images 'which appear to simulate sex acts' and the real thing? Considering how realistic virtual technology - or the virtual "arts" - has become, I don't see how you can make an honest distnction between the two.

[Egg]

Yeah--big victory <\sarcasm>

Now we'll have police and investigators turning into experts on whether a picture was doctored or genuine. In no time people will scoff at the great lengths gone to make the distinction. In short, this is the next step toward legalized pedophilia.

United we stand, indeed.

[arielb]

pedophiles win again

[AmericanInTokyo]

Those who think the now-Constitutionally protected, nefarious material that is being allowed to prevail see little wrong with it, should have the intellectual courage right here and right now in Free Republic to stand up and post a sample of it right here.

Such are they confident that there is nothing socially wrong with this. If they can't, then they must know in their hearts that something is patently wrong and unacceptable about it and there is no socially redeeming quality to it.

[aomagrat]

I reckon this means I can keep my videos of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" and "Porky's".

[Lazamataz]

Well, obviously it's creepy to think of anyone getting their kicks off fake child porn too, even if it doesn't involve an actual child. I think that's what you're feeling.

There ya go. That's what it is. Maybe this legal ruling makes LEGAL sense, but somehow it does not have MORAL clarity.

I dunno. I guess the courts have spoken. And who knows, maybe if the kiddie porn people spend all their time on PhotoShop 6.1, they won't be fondling little Tommy and Tammy down the street.

Just weirds me out, is all.

[dead]

You can't have the government telling you how you can arrange pixels in a picture. That's the bottom line.

It's a victory for the sickos and weirdos, but it's still the right decision, which is confusing.

[freedomcrusader]

I just know I'm setting myself up her and my disclaimer won't help any, but here goes anyway.

DISCLAIMER: I have never been in possesion of, or desired to be in possession of, nor seen, child pron. I still don't, and I will never attempt to be in possession of or see child porn.

But still, how does the consumer (a.k.a. disgusting pervert) tell the difference?

[AUgrad]

What is the difference between virtual images 'which appear to simulate sex acts' and the real thing? Considering how realistic virtual technology - or the virtual "arts" - has become, I don't see how you can make an honest distnction between the two

A child must be harmed for the real stuff to be made. No children are harmed in making the fake stuff.

[jlogajan]

socially redeeming quality

... is a socialist mantra.

[JohnGalt]

What's wrong is that, regarless of the individual merit one way or the other with this case, the First Amendment has become a question about the commerical rights of pornographers rather than preserving rights for political speech.

[Darkshadow]

It's kinda like laws banning candy cigarettes

[BikerNYC]

Such are they confident that there is nothing socially wrong with this.

Sure there is something socially wrong with it, just like there is something socially wrong with setting a table with the knife on the left. Lots of things that are legal are "socially wrong."

[Lazamataz]

It's a victory for the sickos and weirdos, but it's still the right decision, which is confusing.

Yeah, I know. That's it in a nutshell. I can see the legal and practical reasons why this law was wrong, but on the other hand, I really wouldn't mind putting the screws to the pedophiles... so I have mixed feelings, big time.