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."

[mconder]

"The reason nobody wants to directly address the legal realities here is because people like you come along and accuse anyone that admits to said LEGAL realities as being nearly Satanically evil in a MORAL sense. Which is, of course, insulting BS. Morality and legality are separate issues here, period."

If you ackowledge Law is an absolute and flows from The Creator as I do, you will understand that Law and morallity are inseparable. If you believe that laws are arbitrary rules set up by mortal rulers then what is the premiss for our "rights"? Law then becomes a set of arbitrary rules set up for the expediency of a particular ruling elite.

[ecomcon]

Computers make things very confusing. Since digital data is binary, all pictures are in fact just ones and zeros. This means that each picture, whatever its contents, is just a number, a very large integer. If you counted high enough, you would eventually create every possible picture.

Each picture is not a number, it is an arrangement of two numbers via a coordinate map. A digital "picture" is not an Integer.

[Congressman Billybob]

Noticed your screen name and decided to respond to your post. Does that stand for American University, Auburn University, or something else? (I'm still fighting my way through for a Ph.D. from American.)

In answer to your comment, the pervs who traffic in kiddie porn do so for two reasons. One is, they get their jollies from it, which feeds their addiction and increases the chances they will act out their fantasies on a real child. The other is, they show kiddie porn (real or virual) to their victims as part of pursuading them that this is "okay."

In both those ways, virtual kiddie porn can wind up hurting actual children.

I haven't read the decision yet. As First Amendment lawyer I think it may be a "correct" decision under the First Amendment. However, it is a moral disaster, as others have pointed out.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to fight Campaign Finance "Reform/".

Click here for next column: "Why Are We Here?" - the Prequel.

[goodnesswins]

I am VERY troubled, also....I think it's because there is NO right OR wrong in the Courts evaluation of the First Amendment anymore, just some perverted prose about whether a picture is "real" or not....makes me sick....Can you imagine the Founding Fathers evaluating this stuff?

[Redcloak]

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

Of course there is. Pornography of any type is immoral. But even when we know something is immoral, it does not necessarily follow that the Government has any business stepping in to regulate it. This was a good ruling.

[mconder]

I am VERY troubled, also....I think it's because there is NO right OR wrong in the Courts evaluation of the First Amendment anymore, just some perverted prose about whether a picture is "real" or not....makes me sick....Can you imagine the Founding Fathers evaluating this stuff?

This is why our system of govenment is very much broken. Our laws are based on law instead of LAW.

[Phantom Lord]

But the Supreme Court does not rule on, nor determine the legality of peoples actions. They rule on the Constitutionality of laws written by congress regarding peoples actions. BIG difference.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[pgkdan]

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

Well, yeah, drawing sexually explicit pictures of kids is well... sick, depraved, gross, disgusting, vile, vulgar and icky. Pretty creepy too. Anyone who would do that definately bears close scrutiny in my opinion.

[razorback-bert]

My take is that I have to put up with tiny sick minority watching a fake. I will, because this gives me the right to use photoshop to make an image of a politician diddling a young intern.

[AUgrad]

It's Auburn University (War Eagle!!). I agree it is morally troubling. Yet, I can't stand the thought of allowing a law to stand that can be used to ban several legitimate works of art or expression that absolutely DO NOT exploit children.

[mconder]

But the Supreme Court does not rule on, nor determine the legality of peoples actions. They rule on the Constitutionality of laws written by congress regarding peoples actions.

This ruling was the right one, but abuse of the right of free speech will enevible result in restriction of it. If we choose not to obey the higher law, the lower earthly law will have no problem stepping up to play god.

[humbletheFiend]

I just don't get the slippery slope argument when it comes to child porn.

Which side of this case is making the most effective use of a slippery slope argument?

[Timesink]

Wrongo. Spend any amount of time looking at the founding of this country and look at what they were thinking. To them, every legal question was a moral question and vice versa.

Okay, the Supreme Court has just ruled against your opinion. What are you going to do about it then, since they've obviously violated "morality" as defined by you? Take up arms?

[Redcloak]

Well, yeah, drawing sexually explicit pictures of kids is well... sick, depraved, gross, disgusting, vile, vulgar and icky. Pretty creepy too. Anyone who would do that definately bears close scrutiny in my opinion.

Well, yeah, drawing sexually explicit pictures of kids smoking cigarettes is well... sick, depraved, gross, disgusting, vile, vulgar and icky. Pretty creepy too. Anyone who would do that definately bears close scrutiny in my opinion.

Well, yeah, drawing sexually explicit pictures of kids owning guns is well... sick, depraved, gross, disgusting, vile, vulgar and icky. Pretty creepy too. Anyone who would do that definately bears close scrutiny in my opinion.

Well, yeah, drawing sexually explicit pictures of kids voting Republican is well... sick, depraved, gross, disgusting, vile, vulgar and icky. Pretty creepy too. Anyone who would do that definately bears close scrutiny in my opinion.

Well, yeah, drawing sexually explicit pictures of kids driving an SUV is well... sick, depraved, gross, disgusting, vile, vulgar and icky. Pretty creepy too. Anyone who would do that definately bears close scrutiny in my opinion.

Well, yeah, drawing sexually explicit pictures of kids eating meat is well... sick, depraved, gross, disgusting, vile, vulgar and icky. Pretty creepy too. Anyone who would do that definately bears close scrutiny in my opinion.

There are lots of things that various groups of people find "sick, depraved, gross, disgusting, vile, vulgar and icky". This is why we have a Constitution.

[ecomcon]

Bump.

The problem being, (and someone help me with the correct attribution here) that the Constitution is wholly inadequate for an ungodly people.

The Constitution requires some degree of personal self control and prudence, assuming that the Church would instill sufficient foundational moral understanding in the populace so as to cause a sufficient degree of restraint in society.

It seems to me, our society has reached a point of critical mass where the splitting (atoms) cannot be moderated.

[Egg]

My take is that I have to put up with tiny sick minority watching a fake.

How long do you think they will remain a tiny minority?

[bvw]

The right to speech is very braod, and must be. When limits come in, they come in not due to the speech itself, but due to direct harms related to exactly when where the speech is presented or made. For example yelling "Fire" in a crowed theater is prohibited -- not because the word fire is banned, but because it results in a deadly panic in the particular situation. And child porn that uses a child in its making is also banned -- not because the child is represented in it -- but becuase the child is assumed to be harmed in its making.

Free speech is like guns or any other dangerous tool and human ability. Shall we hobble ourselves so that we never trip running down the hall. Sometimes we have to run down the hall.

Imnho, there is NO class of speech that should ever be banned, but certainly clear and limited restrictions may be placed on where and when certain types of speech may be presented.

[mconder]

Okay, the Supreme Court has just ruled against your opinion. What are you going to do about it then, since they've obviously violated "morality" as defined by you? Take up arms?

You really are having trouble understanding this...LAW is not defined by mortals. The spirit of true LAW permiates the entire universe, and can be recognized by anyone who lives in accordance to IT/GOD. I am sorry your spirit is so dimmed you can't feel it. I hope someday you will humbly yourself enough before God that LAW can be revealed to you.

[Valpal1]

Source Age of Innocence
Who says child pornography is a grey area?
Only criminals, warns Andrew Vachss.

by Andrew Vachss
Originally published in the Observer, April 16, 1994

Anytime the issue of "censorship" raises its head, the result is a virtual stampede of opposition—anyone perceived to be in favour is quickly consigned to the lunatic fringe. But when abstract principles are applied to ground-zero problems, rhetoric often falls short of reality's need. A case in point is the debate over "child pornography," a phenomenon more easily denounced than defined.

The concept of censorship is irrelevant to child pornography. lt is not censorship to outlaw (and punish) certain activities. Criminal laws are necessary to both illuminate and enforce the social contract that prohibits individuals from preying upon others. Nor is it censorship to criminalise production and dissemination of, and profit from, child pornography.

In truth, when it comes to child pornography, any discussion of censorship is a sham, typical of the sleight-of-hand used by organized paedophiles as part of their ongoing attempt to raise their sexual predations to the level of civil rights.

In the past, paedophiles have attracted support and sympathy by portraying themselves as a "sexual minority". The idea of suppressing any minority is anathema to those who hold liberty dear. However, when the question is not of status but of acts, paedophiles are no more entitled to protection than rapists.

In the United States, our highest court will soon hear the appeal of an individual convicted of disseminating kiddie porn. The case in question involved a girl who "starred" in a whole series of sex films. There is no question that the films were intentionally pornographic. However, it was later revealed that the girl was only 15 years old when the films were made. The appeal is based on the argument that the film producers were not aware of the child's age, and that a "good-faith mistake" as to the age of an individual in a sexual performance should be completely exculpatory. (I believe this is referring to the infamous Tracy Lords films, possesion of which you can and will be prosecuted for)

That argument is specious to the point of absurdity. We criminalise sexual conduct between an adult and a child. If no force is employed, the crime is called "statutory rape"—a crime for which there is no "good-faith" exception. Such laws are designed to protect children—why should any lesser standard be applied to child pornography? Photographs of a child in a sexual performance should result in strict liability, shifting the burden to the producer to prove that the individual depicted was, in fact, an adult.

Nor should "consent" be exculpatory.

Parents do not "own" children. They cannot dispose of living beings as they see fit. When the proud paedophile waves his "consent form" signed by the child's parents, I would argue that not only does he remain liable, but that the individual who signed the "consent form" also shares that liability.

Another pitch paedophiles use to gain support is to claim fellowship with the gay community by calling anti-paedophile activity "homophobic". Their cry is: "Today the paedophile, tomorrow the homosexual." This argument is aided and abetted by sloppy journalists who report "homosexual child abuse" when the perpetrator and victim are of the same sex, but never headline "heterosexual child abuse"' when they are not. The truth is, of course, that predatory paedophiles are neither homosexual nor heterosexual; they are child molesters. It is worthy to note that the world's largest gay and lesbian organization has recently severed all ties with NAMBLA (the grotesquely-named North American Man-Boy Love Association, which actively promotes sex between children and adults), finding NAMBLA's positions "reprehensible".

What then of child pornography? The issue is not whether it should be banned—it is patently illegal—but how to define it statutorily. The hoary old charge that it "appeals to prurient interest" simply invites debate, creating another of the treasured "grey areas" so precious to those seeking sexual access to children. lt is pointless to ask if child pornography "appeals to prurient interest." The real question is, whose prurient interest? The test cannot be whether such material would stimulate a paedophile. Anyone who has worked with (or against) such individuals knows that they can be stimulated by material which is beyond the scope of prohibition, from children modeling underwear in a catalogue to a primary school football match. Not so many years ago, the production of child pornography required a network of confederates for production and distribution. Kiddie porn, once a monolith, has become a cottage industry. With the advent of do-it-yourself devices such as the Polaroid camera and the camcorder, anyone can produce a "quality" product.

Paedophiles do not rely upon child pornography for self-stimulation. For them, such material has two essential purposes: one, it self-refers the possessor to "normality" (i.e. it tells paedophiles they are not alone, that others share their practices, that it is not they who are deviant—it is the oppressive laws which prohibit their "love"); and two, it de-sensitizes children especially susceptible to peer pressure by displaying graphic proof that "lots of kids like to do this," thus paving the way for the victimization of their targets.

Child pornography should not be attacked on the grounds that it causes crime, but that it is a crime.

The definition? Photographs, videotapes or any other means of recording and reproducing children engaged in sex (whether with adults, other children, objects or animals) is a picture of a crime, period. (In the limited space allocated to this piece, I can do no more than acknowledge the "baby-on-the-bearskin-rug" issue, while maintaining that the alleged "danger" such a possibility poses to loving parents is deliberately exaggerated by those of another ilk entirely.)

Are such depictions "art"? Again, the paedophile community seeks to make us complicitous in begging the question. The issue is not "what is art?" but "what is victimization?" I can no more accept a child pornographer saying he is a victim of censorship than I could a mugger claiming his field of activity was performance art.

---

While this does not address digitally created porn, it does point out that we have the right to outlaw certain behavior and products, and we should.

In the case of cut and paste kiddie porn, the rights of the child has been violated by using his facial or body image without consent, and for which consent cannot be given or obtained. Should pornographers be allowed to pose and photograph children in order to get images that will be easier to photoshop into virtual porn?

As far as wholly digital productions like Anime, I think it is entirely appropriate to regulate a product that could and would be used by criminals to desensitize and manipulate children for the purposes of sexual victimization. Burglary tools can be regulated and outlawed, explosives and bomb components are as well. Digital child porn is used as a criminal tool and could be outlawed on this basis, as none of its other "uses" are of significant social utility. It is a product of no social benifit and significant social harm, so outlaw it.