Posted on 04/16/2002 7:32:20 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:08 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
This from Reuters:
Kennedy wrote for the court majority that the law was too broad and violated the First Amendment by prohibiting speech despite serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. He said themes of teen-age sexual activity and the sexual abuse of children have inspired countless literary works. He said William Shakespeare in "Romeo and Juliet" created the most famous pair of teen-age lovers, one of whom was just 13.
While Shakespeare may not have included sexually explicit scenes for the Elizabethan audience, modern movie directors may want to show that the couple consummated their relationship, he said.
Kennedy said a number of acclaimed movies, filmed without any child actors, explore themes that fall within the wide sweep of the law's prohibitions.
CITES MOVIES 'TRAFFIC,' 'AMERICAN BEAUTY'
He cited the award-wining movies, "Traffic," which has the high school daughter of the nation's drug czar trading sex for drugs, and "American Beauty," with scenes of sexual relations between a teen-age girl and her boyfriend and a teen-age girl and a middle-aged man.
The so-called "virtual" child pornography law, adopted by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, made it a crime to distribute or possess the pictures, even if the images did not involve real children.
-----end quote----
Looks like we can score one for Clinton. Amazingly, in the sex department.
So....this only applies to the U.S.? God is only strict with us, is that the deal? btw, it ain't freedom if you aren't free to use it! Unless the Creator created car insurance co's in His image (you pay and pay and pay your premium and then when you actually use the insurance they get mad at you and either drop you or raise your rates.lol!)
Bottom line, which do soccer moms value more: defending access to abortion(which they might need only a few times in their lives) from a perceived threat, or protecting their children from a threat potentially encountered on a daily basis?
This decision could give the GOP decisive victories in Nov., if they chose to utilize it.
What's wrong is that this virtual kiddie porn exists at all, which prompted congress to pass a law, which prompted the court to rule upon it.
Even had the court upheld the law, that would not, alas, have fixed the underlying cultural illness.
One of the tricky things---given how sophisticated graphics programs are these days---will be trying to determine what is real child porn and what is fake child porn. Unless the tourist guy shows up in the image, I'm not sure how you'd know!
Of course, the postal service has been in this business for years. They routinely create all kinds of fake child porn (rearranging actualy child porn images, i think) then bombard some poor schmuck with ads for it until he finally, after 20 times or so, expresses an interest and WHAM! they nail him.
There should be a single solitary test we ask before making something illegal, "Does this harm someone?". If we cannot point to a specific individual that is harmed, the government has no right to outlaw it. Deviating from this simple test has led us to the morass we find ourselves in today.
That's why I'm sure as all get out that this ruling will save some kids.
Now is it sick for people to get their kicks off watching kids have sex - well that we can debate till the cows come home. Good ruling though by the United States Supreme Court.
A little "original intent" for perspective.
Yeah, except the relevant part of the bill has been declared unConstitutional. You don't suppose he had that in mind, do ya?
When I think of Virtual images, I immediately think of video games. With this ruling, what do you suppose the next Lara Crofts video game could look like, legally? Could she have a younger sister, say sixteen? If you can get her to complete a triple back flip over the flaming ogre and land on a dime to reach the treasure, what else could you make her do with your "joystick"?
The child pornography collections of pedophiles are a stimulus to desire, and to action.
Only in the modern era have we required injury to an actual child as the necessary element of the crime.
Obscene material is that which is unacceptable to "community standards", and that which tends to excite lust in the viewer, and to be degrading.
Virtual child pornography meets all of these tests.
Oh, so correct!
Those children in Lewisville who murdered their brother probably saw much more than 20 murders on TV and at the movies, so does that absolve them of responsibilities for their actions?
Should the sting techniques be criticized? Perhaps. Should Hollywood be criticized for the garbage they produce? Perhaps. But ultimately it is the individual who acts, however much tempted, that must bear the responsibility.
Are you suggesting that there's a large number of latent pedophiles who really want to look at child porn but were prevented from doing so by this law? Doesn't seem terribly plausible to me.
I concur, and my reasoning is one and the same used against adult in pornography as even "simulated" child porn still hurts children everywhere. And since children must be protected from perverts, even "fake kiddie porn" should be illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.