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 ...
This interpretation stood until post-WWI when the SC evidently became so enlightened we started down the road to legalized "virtual child porn". I can't belive the republic survived for 150 years without it.
I get your point. This decision isn't sick or demented. It's purely evil.
Interesting that he brings up American Beauty as the actress (Thora Birch) who played "Jane" the daughter was only 17 when she filmed her topless scene standing in her window.
I was never quite sure how the filmmakers got away with that one.
Being that virtual child pornography is (now) legal, marketing gimmicks and advertisements for the "product" will most likely appear where other mature or adult products are available or advertised. This will result in a broader exposure of the "product", influencing those who previously had no inclination for child porn/sex. Your statement might hold true if the current pedophile population remains constant. I find it hard to believe that a hard-core pedophile will substitute the real thing with a cartoon.
--George Washington, in his first inaugural address (April 30, 1789), reprinted in The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1931-44),vol. 30, pp. 292-6.
And
WASHINGTON - 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..."
--AP News April 16, 2002
The problem (well, one of them) with the statute is that it covered much more than "obscenity".
Obscene material is still illegal.
It is very important.
First, I want to give you the rest of the news story, as it was published by the AP:
The court majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, found two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act overly broad and unconstitutional.
"The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction," Kennedy wrote for himself and Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Clarence Thoams wrote separately to agree with the outcome.
The law was challenged by a trade association for pornographers.
The law barred sexually explicit material that "appear(s) to be a minor" or that is advertised in a way that "conveys the impression" that a minor was involved in its creation.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor partially agreed with the majority and partially disagreed. She was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia. Rehnquist and Scalia also filed their own separate dissenting opinion that went further.
"The aim of ensuring the enforceability of our nation's child pornography laws is a compelling one," Rehnquist wrote for the pair. "The (law) is targeted to this aim by extending the definition of child pornography to reach computer-generated images that are virtually indistinguishable from real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct."
The law was Congress' answer to then-emerging computer technology that allowed the computer alteration of innocent images of real children, or the creation from scratch of simulated children posed in sexual acts.
The law was an an expansion of existing bans on the usual sort of child pornography. Congress justifed the wider ban on grounds that while no real children were harmed in creating the material, real children could be harmed by feeding the prurient appetities of pedophiles or child molesters.
The Free Speech Coalition, the pronographers' trade group, said it opposes child pornography but that the law could snare legitimate, if unsavory, films and photos produced by its members.
The group did not challenge a section of the law that banned the use of identifiable children in computer-altered sexual images.
A federal judge upheld the law, but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in December 1999 that the challenged provisions violated the Constitution's free-speech protection.
The appeals court said the government did not show a connection between computer-generated child pornography and the exploitation of actual children.
The Supreme Court upheld that view.
The Clinton and Bush administrations defended the law in court, claiming it "helps to stamp out the market for child pornography involving real children."
Like obscenity, child pornography is not protected by the Constitution's free-speech guarantee.
This case is one of two dealing with children and pornography that the court considred this term. The other, which the court has not yet decided, tests the constitutionality of a separate law governing children's access to sexually explicit material on the Internet.
Today's case is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 00-795.
--------------
First off, it goes without saying SCOTUS has failed this country, and its children, once again.
Second, you may have noticed I placed two specific passages in bold letters. This was done for two reasons:
1) So you could know who was behind this,
2) The reason behind the opposition is false.
Let me take you to the April, 1998 issue of what is considered by many to be the magazine for the porn industry, Adult Video News. In its "Legal News & Views" section was the following:
"The CPPA grants no exemption of 'artistic' or other values that may be possessed by the materials in question."
They also cite specifically the "works" of one Jock Sturges, a photographer whose books contain images of children running through adolescence and puberty in various stages of undress.
When I personally sent a letter to AVN, asking them pointedly the obvious question, "What is artistic about child pornography?", they responded this way:
"Your statement assumes that the photos in question are child pornography."
Now, I had been a long time fan of porn. A staunch defender. I had even worked in the industry for nearly two years (adult book store clerk). When I saw this, however, I washed my hands of it.
Nobody in their right mind condones or supports the sexual exploitation or abuse of children. I sure as hell don't.
I hope John Ashcroft or our Prez pushes for another bill that will help put an end to this nonsense.
And what happens if/when a majority of people in this country decide that carrying a picture of an aborted fetus is "destructive to the ends of society"? Or that evangelizing for your preferred religion is "destructive"? To what principle will you appeal then?
You are talking about unleashing forces that you cannot possibly hope to control...
"They're called 'cigarettes'."
"What do you do with them?"
"You set them on fire and breath in the smoke."
"That sounds disgusting!"
"So how many would you like?"
"I'll take a carton."
Yup... now that you mention it, that sounds perfectly logical. It must have happened that way. Supply must have created demand.
So where would you like your dust bunny shipped?
This has been proposed. Is murder less of a crime than sex?
whatta you got---woijee boards---politcal bizzaro-ness?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion---EVOLUTION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof-CREATION; 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.
libertarian--law/constitution family values...kooks--weirdos--perverts!
Devilcrats---the mad VLWC!
On the FR too!
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.