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."

[Mortimer Snavely]

Obviously freedom of speech is inherently limited by potential harm. A lot of people forget this. One can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and all that. In this virtual kiddy porn situation, we are talking about a commodity which promotes the sexual brutalization of children in the popular imagination. Will those who purchase virtual child pornography fantasize about sex with computer images or with children? Shouldn't purchase of such material be treated as an indicator of serious, inherently dangerous mental illness?

There are those, unfortunately, at this forum, whose concepts of freedom are as shallow as a clam shell. They imagine that this is a telling blow against the power of the State. What is in fact the case is that the concept of sex with children has now been legitimized. Some folks, who imagine themselves to be conservatives, do not imagine this to be harmful, and again I must ask what is left for conservatives to conserve?

[CDHart]

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

You know it is morally wrong, as most of us do. But that does not necessarily make it legally wrong. The SC made the right decision, IMO.

But didn't one of the founders say something about "self-government will not work without self-discipline?" Or maybe it was Paul Harvey.

Carolyn

[Marysecretary]

Hmm, why am I not surprised? What a world we live in! Beam me up, Scotty!!!

[jwalsh07]

Yes it will reduce the actual abuse of real children directly.

Based on what? How you are feeling today?

Does advertising beer result in less use of beer?

[ikka]

I'd like to see some strict controls on infinity, personally.

Infinity I am ok with, but ***negative infinity*** should be strictly regulated.

[bvw]

Based on how I am feeling today. Yes. And how are you feeling?

[hawaiian]

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

You can't put your finger on it? This is a joke, right?

[Lazamataz]

No finger jokes allowed on porn threads.

ESPECIALLY child porn.

[Phantom Lord]

I think we should both be able to agree that the law as written by congress was poorly written and the Supreme Court did the right thing in declaring it unconstitutional.

I think we can both also agree that the action that should be taken is not bitching about the Supreme Courts decision or blaming them. Energy should be directed at the passage of a law that is far clearer in its writting, scope, and intent.

And as far as the "child in a bathtub" problem, the law also included drawings of sexual activity. Created either by hand or by computer. That in my opinion is another case of where this law went WAY to far and threw it into the "unconstitutional" catagory.

[bvw]

Simple economics: Use a real kid and go to jail. Use a virtual kid a you're ok.

Until this ruling a pornographer would go to jail either way. So why not use a real kid. Now the scumbags have a reason not to. Simple.

[BikerNYC]

I assure you that the speech you engage in as you jaywalk or crap on the street is not what is getting you arrested.

[jwalsh07]

Simple economics: Use a real kid and go to jail. Use a virtual kid a you're ok.

The laws of economics do not much matter to pedophiles, of whom we were talking about, the laws of perversity is their guide.

Until this ruling a pornographer would go to jail either way. So why not use a real kid. Now the scumbags have a reason not to. Simple.

The scumbags remain scumbags whether or not drugs, kiddie porn or murder are declared legal. That is something that some folk have a hard time getting their hands around.

Now I'll ask again, does advertising and widely disseminating information on a "product" result in less use of that "product"? What do the economic laws tell you there?

[jwalsh07]

Ah but you are wrong. Crapping on the street is an act of speech. It says, here is what I think of your nice little uptight town. Kerplop.

Is it protected?

[Egg]

I think we should both be able to agree that the law as written by congress was poorly written and the Supreme Court did the right thing in declaring it unconstitutional.

You don't seem to care why the SC threw the law out, just that the original law is gone. I care very much that they threw it out, in part, because they believed simulated child pornography is protected speech. We are not on the same page if you agree with them in that respect.

I ask again: Do you believe that the publishing of children engaged in simulated sex acts is a legal right entitled to citizens of this country?

[ffusco]

or perhaps they choose not to be t-boned at every intersection. Do you work at being stupid or does it just flow naturally?

[Liberal Bob]

This thread just goes to show that the libertarian party has become a haven for dopers and sexual perverts.

[Almondjoy]

Because as a detail we all hate to think or see the idea of child porn.. in the grand sense it's a victory to first amendment in which other "virtual acts" could be encroached upon as well.. what about "virtual" smoking a joint or "virtual" speeding.. it could be argued that virtual law breaking encourages regular law breaking.. least that's the way I see the big picture.

[BikerNYC]

If any particular act of crapping has an expressive component (like donating money to a political campaign or burning a flag- you don't have to say a thing for it to be speech) then it might, indeed, be protected.

Starting a fire on the street is generally illegal, unless the fire you are starting is burning a flag, which could have an expressive component and would be legal.

There are examples of "performance artists" crapping on stage in order to express a particular point of view (I had the misfortue of seeing such an "artist" shove canned yams in her foofoo to express some point that I cannot remember -- a perfect example of the medium drowning the message). Many acts can have expressive components, even though they are just acts and not technically speech. That is what the Campaign Reform bill is all about.

And, of course, you have the right to crap in the privacy of your own house, just like the folks who are possessing this virtual porn can possess it in the privacy of their own houses.