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."

[Calico Cat]

What a society tolerates, it silently condones. Is anyone willing to accept the tolerance of any kind of child pornography as the price we pay for living in a free society? I'm not talking about 'Lolita' or 'Romeo and Juliet' or 'American Beauty'; the problem with the 'slippery slope' theory is that it automatically lumps in works of art with those whose only intent is prurient and which caters to the lowest common denominator. 'If we ban one, we ban it all' is a rational fallacy--we all know the difference between Nabokov and Flynt, for God's sake.

[Condorman]

there are plenty of women out there who enjoy porn too.

RrrrrEEEEEAAAAllllyyyyy...?? You're not one of them, by chance, are you? You're not... single, by chance, are you?

[SMACK!]

[OW!]

Relax! Joke! Sheesh!

[gdani]

Perhaps the pornographers will digitize your child's face, graft it onto a virtual body...

That was, and still is, illegal i.e. using a real child's head and morphing it onto another image.

[Redcloak]

What's that? They used tobacco before the evil tobacco companies supplied it?? Demand preceded supply?!?

[Redcloak]

Hiya Kevin! No kidding; you were the first person I thought of this morning when I heard the news about this ruling.

[Lurking Libertarian]

What a society tolerates, it silently condones

As I argued way back near the top of this thread, there are plenty of odious behaviors which we, as a society, should refuse to tolerate; but we need not always use the blunt instrument of the criminal law to effectuate such intolerance.

[RAT Patrol]

Thank you!

Let me add that the hypocrisy of the entertainment/media industry on this issue is amazing. "Freedom" above all, no matter how unsavory. But let the issue be about a few "negative" politcal campaign ads (who defines "negative"?) and they are all for censorship, albeit disguised with financial hoops to jump. There argument does not hold water. Allowing virtual kiddie porn does nothing to protect REAL freedom! They like smut because there is a market for it, that's all it is.

[goodnesswins]

The First Amendment protects POLITICAL speech - can anyone here tell me how pornography is political speech? Just wondering.....

[Houmatt]

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?

Ask Janet Reno.

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

Really? You mean like six guys taking turns and spitting into the face of a woman? The depiction of another being gang raped and murdered on camera? Or how about a woman being suspended in air by chains while a man hits her repeatedly with a whip as she emits blood cudling screams of pain? You do not find any of that obscene?

If that is the case, I wonder what you will say if someone decides to attempt to mass produce snuff films?

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

As there are women who seem to enjoy being beaten within an inch of their lives. That does not make it acceptable.

[gdani]

The First Amendment protects POLITICAL speech...

Oh please. The First Amendment protects a lot more than political speech and that's the way the Founding Fathers wanted it.

Otherwise, why did they not specifically add the word "political" to "speech" in the First Amendment?

[gdani]

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?

Ask Janet Reno

Janet Reno's reponsible for the thousands upon thousands of local prosecutors out there who are not shutting down convenience stores for selling Playboy?

[goodnesswins]

Oh, yeah, I forgot....pornography is speech. DUH...sorry I'm so dumb.

[gdani]

Oh, yeah, I forgot....pornography is speech. DUH...sorry I'm so dumb

Where in your copy of the Bill of Rights does it say "political speech" in the First Amendment?

[general_re]

Not to mention that this notion that you can somehow separate political from non-political speech is usually promulgated by people who haven't thought much about how really difficult that is...

[concerned about politics]

WARNING......

As I said before, DESENTIZATION and INCRIMENTALISM.
Next, you'll be facing hate crimes legislation for not being "tolerant" of homosexual pediphiles. The Man/Boy lovers club is rejoycing along with you. They've just moved one step closer to their goal.
The movement has already started. NAMBLA said it would be patient.
Go ahead and celebrate while you can, but within a year, you'll be hiding your children.
You read it here first. It's comming.
Enjoy your evening with your kids. Watch a simulated child porn flick together. They'll be seeing them in school soon anyway.

[Bonaparte]

AmericanInTokyo: "I wonder what Ted Bundy would think of this decision."

DaveS: "Ted Bundy liked college aged women."
____________________________________________

Dave, meet Kimberly Leach of Lake City, Florida. She was 12 years old in February of 1978, when she became one of Bundy's victims. A few days before she met her fate, Bundy made an attempt on a 14-year-old girl, Leslie Parmenter, who was fortunately rescued when her brother drove by to pick her up.

Most of the known victims of this monster were indeed college aged (one, at 17, was still in high school), but the total number is estimated to be quite high. Who knows how many children like Kimberly and Leslie died at his hands?

[beGlad]

Let me try to help.

If virtual child pornography is legal then: is it o.k. to show it to children? will we someday see it on t.v as we do adult porn now? can your child's image be made into a virtual porn star?

This decision makes me physically sick to my stomach. Much as clinton's re-election did, or o.j. acquital.

[Timesink]

"Real child porn remains as illegal as it ever was" You'll have to enlighten me as to how you tell the difference? Does a disclaimer suffice? This has opened up a can of worms.

Good question. As of today, it's still quite simple for the naked eye - at worst, the trained naked eye - to tell the difference between a real photo and computer-generated graphic, no matter how good it is. And other computers can easily tell the difference; Kodak, for example, makes a little money on the side examining pictures via both human and technological methods and determining if they've real or if they've been doctored (lawyers need to know this sort of thing a lot).

Ten years down the road, though, who knows?

[GiovannaNicoletta]

What's bothering you is the knowledge that child rapists will still get off on computer generated child porn and will eventually rape actual, living children when the virtual thrill is gone.

I wonder if the parents of the little rape victims can now sue the hell out of the people who produce this crap like smokers are doing to the tobacco companies?