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 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 541-551 next last
To: Scorpio
So then references to tobacco use that predate Philip-Morris must be in error, right?
301 posted on 04/16/2002 1:37:06 PM PDT by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: sixtycyclehum
Take note that Scalia and Thomas deemed it Unconstitutional also

No, Scalia dissented.

302 posted on 04/16/2002 1:37:58 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
Who cares? Them Injuns wuz all heathens no'how...
303 posted on 04/16/2002 1:42:51 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
Where in the Constitution is your right drive an SUV? It's not listed and the Founders couldn't have known about SUVs. There's no way that they would have approved of them. Is there a right to drive one?
304 posted on 04/16/2002 1:43:49 PM PDT by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Scorpio: "Do I really believe what - that nobody ever considered smoking noxious pollutants into their lungs until unscrupulous tobacco companies came along and marketed their filth?"

general_re: "You really seriously believe that to be the case?"
_____________________________________

I do. Did a tobacco company market its product to Sir Walter Raleigh or to all those Indians who had already been smoking it long before we arrived on these shores?

305 posted on 04/16/2002 1:45:39 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

Comment #306 Removed by Moderator

To: Doctor Stochastic
It is psychologically a very different crime. While that sounds logical enough, the reality, first of all, the movies portray murder that you know is fake. They obviously don't actually show a murder, and while the drama is good it is clearly fake. The child porn stuff is different, imo, and it is more like alcohol on the brain for the warped minds who even want to view it.

I think freedoms need to be kept in balance and not simply reduced to the lowest form possible. I've heard the argument plenty of times that "we must tolerate that because otherwise the government will take ALL freedom away." Hogwash. When it comes to the freedom of the Boy Scouts, they nearly lost with a closer vote than the one referenced above. The more moral the freedom choice the less our current political definition of "freedom" supports you. The more outrageous, the better chance you have.

Freedom does not mean we must act like animals without the ability to reason and think. A little moral common sense and judgement does not mean totalitarianism. Freedom works both ways and I'm tired of it always protecting the criminal first, or the immoral scum bag.

307 posted on 04/16/2002 1:48:03 PM PDT by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo
ONE NATION UNDER GOD

Not anymore; those days are long gone.

308 posted on 04/16/2002 1:48:08 PM PDT by DBtoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

Comment #309 Removed by Moderator

To: gdani
Take note that Scalia and Thomas deemed it Unconstitutional also

No, Scalia dissented.

Only Rehnquist voted to uphold the statute in its entirety. (Even he agreed that it would be unconstitutional to ban American Beauty or Traffic, but he thought the law could be read narrowly to exclude those kind of "serious" films.) Scalia and O'Connor found the law unconstitutionally vague in part, but would have upheld some (not all) of the parts thrown out by the majority.

310 posted on 04/16/2002 1:53:08 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
The victim is the user.

So you support laws that protect people from themselves? Are you in favor of mandatory seatbelt laws? How about outlawing cigarettes? How about junk food?

The purpose of government is to protect people from being harmed by others, not to protect us from ourselves.

311 posted on 04/16/2002 1:54:29 PM PDT by Godel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: gdani
It doesn't? Sexually exploiting women, degrading them, humiliating them for the sexual stimulation/satisfaction of men is NOT obscene?

On what planet?

312 posted on 04/16/2002 1:56:47 PM PDT by Houmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I am somehow troubled by this ruling

You ought to be.

The floodgates of kiddie porn have been opened wide.

'Course the liberfoolians will simply cheer, ride the wave of filth, lift their eyes piously to the sky, and declare they are personally opposed to kiddie porn.

Yeah, what a wonderful, wonderful world.

313 posted on 04/16/2002 1:57:14 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ikanakattara
I posted my #247 in response to your #121 before i read the actual decision. Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion takes the position I did-- it should be legal to use virtual kids, but if the film looks real, the defendant will have to prove that the children are virtual computer images.
314 posted on 04/16/2002 1:59:20 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
Well, how about libel? Slander? Copyright infringement? Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Death threats (especially against the POTUS)? Defamation of character? Obscene material?

Know what they all have in common? They are legally established limits to what is called "free speech."

315 posted on 04/16/2002 2:00:37 PM PDT by Houmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
re post #307

Very well said, RAT Patrol!!!

316 posted on 04/16/2002 2:01:49 PM PDT by DBtoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
It doesn't? Sexually exploiting women, degrading them, humiliating them for the sexual stimulation/satisfaction of men is NOT obscene?

On what planet?

Then how do you explain the existence of perfectly legal pronography in the U.S. (which is on this planet)? Why are all of these people not being fined and in prison?

You may think it's obscene. But much pornogrpahy does not meet the legal definition of "obscenity".

And, by the way, there are plenty of women out there who enjoy porn too.

317 posted on 04/16/2002 2:01:52 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Houmatt
It doesn't? Sexually exploiting women, degrading them, humiliating them for the sexual stimulation/satisfaction of men is NOT obscene? On what planet?

In this country, "obscenity" is a technical legal term, and lots of what is "pornography" in everyday speech is not legally "obscene." For one thing, to be "obscene" a work must be "patently offensive to local community standards." In some "local communities" (most large cities, in fact), it's hard to find 12 jurors who think anything violates their "local standards."

318 posted on 04/16/2002 2:03:37 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
it should be legal to use virtual kids, but if the film looks real, the defendant will have to prove that the children are virtual computer images.

Perhaps the pornographers will digitize your child's face, graft it onto a virtual body to be sexually abused by teams of sado-masochistic homo-pedophiles.

You could give videos to all your friends to prove how open-minded and progressive you are.

319 posted on 04/16/2002 2:04:56 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

Comment #320 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 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