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."

[Drew68]

If such a distinction can't be made, then all child pornography laws will be dead letters, since there will always be "reasonable doubt" whether the children involved were real or virtual.

You are correct.

Under the new USSC ruling prosecuters will need to produce actual "victims" to bolster their cases. This is something that currently is almost never done. Since most "real" child pornography originates in Latin America, Asia and Eastern Europe (as I've heard) producing a victim in front of an American courtroom will be next to impossible.

The end result will be that many child pornography cases (even those involving real children) will be acquitted or not prosecuted at all.

(I apologize if this has been said before as I haven't yet read through all the posts.)

[DouglasKC]

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.

No kidding, this opens the door to realistic computer generated three year olds getting raped by sick bastards in a porn flick...which inevitably will lead to real three year olds getting raped by sick bastards in real life.

The Supreme Court blew it.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Sorry you feel that way. :-(

We will continue to hold you up in our prayers to Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. ;-)

[AmericanInTokyo]

A good example of 'cyber' or 'virtual' and comic strip manga-type child porno going rampant is right here in Japan. There are legions of perverts on crowded trains grasping and groping high school girls, and rapes in dark alleys then ignored or laughed off by corrup Japanese police, because of how 'hot and bothered' perps get after viewing this at every turn in modern Japanese society.

This is the vision of Liberty for America held by the libertarian.

[Dave S]

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

In the real things, kids are made to participate in sex. In virtual arena, that doesnt happen. Its all simulated. No kids are involved. Child pornography is banned because it harms the kids, not because its offensive to adults.

[AmericanInTokyo]

I wonder what Ted Bundy would think about this decision?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Eventually the visual technology will be so skilled that it will be *impossible* to distinguish between a digitally created actor and a live one. If such a distinction can't be made, then all child pornography laws will be dead letters, since there will always be "reasonable doubt" whether the children involved were real or virtual.

That's a real concern, but it should be possible to craft a statute that resolves this problem. When the first Child Pornography Act was passed, some pornographers claimed their "teen" performers were really young-looking 18 year olds; Congress responded by putting in the law a requirement that producers of porn films get, and keep on file, copies of birth certificates of all performers. You could similarly pass a statute saying that performers will be presumed to be real unless you can produce the computer files showing you generated them. I suspect the Court would uphold the constitutionality of that law.

[Dave S]

This decision is not only a perverse interpretation of the First Amendment, it's truly satanic. It's time the court changed its name to the Satanic Court.

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.

[Redcloak]

That's not a very good analogy. What you describe is prohibited by a deliberately broad reaching statue. But a more "generic" image of a presidential assassination would not be prohibited. Thus an image depicting the death of "President Jones" is legal. The difference, as noted in the case's synopsis, is proximate harm. Your billboard is viewed as a threat to the President, and thus is a proximate cause of harm. "President Jones", however, cannot be harmed as he does not exist. You can threaten him all day long. Similarly, real child porn harms a child in its production. Simulated child porn, on the other hand, harms no child. It may be true that a pedophile will use that virtual image in his crimes, but there is no evidence that the crime would have gone uncommitted had it not been for the existence of the image. There is no proximate harm in the case of virtual porn.

Banning virtual child porn based upon what a pedophile might do with it is like banning guns because of what a bank robber might do with a gun.

[f.Christian]

Virtual junkies...is this needle exchange in the needle park---the libertarian euphoria...culling-darwin the herd?

[Redcloak]

Unless you're "Miss Cleo", I don't think that we'll be divining "what the Founders think" any time soon. We can, however, look at the Constitution that they set down for us.

[f.Christian]

We can, however, look at the Constitution that they set down for us.

---look at the... Constitution---that they set down for us.

[Dave S]

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.

Maybe Egg feels he might be a latent pedophile. I would imagine any one crazy enough to have any interest in this has already found a way to act on it.

[Aquinasfan]

I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.

SATANIC. Absolutely satanic.

[Dave S]

I wonder what Ted Bundy would think about this decision?

Bundy liked college age women.

[Redcloak]

Yes, let's look...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We don't need tarot cards to understand what they meant.

[Redcloak]

You have it backwards. Demand creates supply. (I have a near inexhaustable supply of dust bunnies under my house. I don't seen any lines forming outside to buy them. Supply must not create demand.)

[Jim Noble]

>>Child pornography is banned because it harms the kids, not because its offensive to adults<<

Not so.

It is banned because it is obscene. No court has ever ruled that obscene material is legally protected-until today.