Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court strikes down ban on virtual child pornography
Associated Press ^ | 4-16-02

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]

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."


(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: childpornography; scotuslist; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 541-551 next last
To: in_troth
Good point - I remember that one. IIRC, he was pulled back in for possessing self-produced drawings of children in sexual poses and journals containing sexual abuse-type fantasies and scenarios. What I don't remember, though, is whether is was a condition of his parole that he stay away from such things - if it was, he's still out of luck.
221 posted on 04/16/2002 11:15:55 AM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
This part of the longer article bothered me very much. Our standards are, indeed, being defined by Hollywood.

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.

222 posted on 04/16/2002 11:18:29 AM PDT by PoisedWoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Egg
If you insult the Creator who gives you the unalienable right to be free by using your 'freedoms' in a manner that utterly offends Him, then your laws will slowly take a form that cuts off such 'freedoms'. Freedom has a purpose, just as life has a purpose.

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!)

223 posted on 04/16/2002 11:18:42 AM PDT by in_troth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Let me repeat for clarity:

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.

224 posted on 04/16/2002 11:20:06 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
"but damn, something is just wrong here, and I cannot put my finger on 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.

225 posted on 04/16/2002 11:23:58 AM PDT by Tauzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
Despite the additional problems with prosecuting real child porn, if a child pornographer can achieve his economic goal and a viewer be sufficiently satisfied by the fake stuff so that real children are not being used to make real porn, that, alone, is a worthwhile result of this decision.

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.

226 posted on 04/16/2002 11:24:36 AM PDT by in_troth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
No harm, no foul. If no actual person is harmed by these virtual images, then the government has no right to restrict them. That way lies fascism.

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.

227 posted on 04/16/2002 11:25:18 AM PDT by Godel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
My limited familiarity with the business tells me that pornographers are very much economically driven. Would that more big businesses be so attached to their cash flow rather than financial gimmicks and credit lines.

That's why I'm sure as all get out that this ruling will save some kids.

228 posted on 04/16/2002 11:25:23 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Hey what happened to New Coke?
229 posted on 04/16/2002 11:29:28 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
This is a good decision. There is not a victim here. It should not be illegal to draw a naked child...simulate a naked child on a computer...or animation. Now we can argue the "morality" aspect of it all we want - no problem - but to say that a crime has been committed because someone "created" a sex image of a naked child is wrong. There is no crime there....

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.

230 posted on 04/16/2002 11:29:41 AM PDT by Lucas1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.'' - Blackstone.

A little "original intent" for perspective.

231 posted on 04/16/2002 11:31:15 AM PDT by garv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PoisedWoman
Score one for Clinton...

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"?

232 posted on 04/16/2002 11:31:51 AM PDT by ZOOKER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
>>something is just wrong here, and I cannot put my finger on it.<<

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.

233 posted on 04/16/2002 11:35:30 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
>>The victim is the user.<<

Oh, so correct!

234 posted on 04/16/2002 11:38:16 AM PDT by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: in_troth
Oh, I'm cryin' my eyes out. Bottom line, even if it was a sting, the guy CHOSE to look at kiddie porn. Actions have consequences.

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.

235 posted on 04/16/2002 11:41:23 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

Comment #236 Removed by Moderator

To: Crunchy Jello
"Don't stand...don't stand so...don't stand so close to me"
237 posted on 04/16/2002 11:44:31 AM PDT by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

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

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.

238 posted on 04/16/2002 11:45:59 AM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
When one is dealing with virtual images only I would consider the user to be a victim. I cannot imagine the spirtual/moral turmoil one would have to be in to view images of that nature, even if they are virtual. That is what I meant--a victim of their own moral crisis.
239 posted on 04/16/2002 11:46:24 AM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I am somehow troubled by this ruling.

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.

240 posted on 04/16/2002 11:46:51 AM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 541-551 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson