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 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 541-551 next last
To: gdani
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.
321 posted on 04/16/2002 2:06:55 PM PDT by Calico Cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: gdani
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!

322 posted on 04/16/2002 2:07:39 PM PDT by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
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.

323 posted on 04/16/2002 2:09:39 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Scorpio
What's that? They used tobacco before the evil tobacco companies supplied it?? Demand preceded supply?!?
324 posted on 04/16/2002 2:16:20 PM PDT by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Hiya Kevin! No kidding; you were the first person I thought of this morning when I heard the news about this ruling.
325 posted on 04/16/2002 2:19:58 PM PDT by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Calico Cat
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.

326 posted on 04/16/2002 2:21:47 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
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.

327 posted on 04/16/2002 2:25:31 PM PDT by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: gdani
The First Amendment protects POLITICAL speech - can anyone here tell me how pornography is political speech? Just wondering.....
328 posted on 04/16/2002 2:26:51 PM PDT by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

329 posted on 04/16/2002 2:26:58 PM PDT by Houmatt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
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?

330 posted on 04/16/2002 2:29:42 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: 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

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

331 posted on 04/16/2002 2:32:41 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Oh, yeah, I forgot....pornography is speech. DUH...sorry I'm so dumb.
332 posted on 04/16/2002 2:32:55 PM PDT by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
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?

333 posted on 04/16/2002 2:35:11 PM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: gdani
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...
334 posted on 04/16/2002 2:36:34 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

Comment #335 Removed by Moderator

To: Oldeconomybuyer
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.

336 posted on 04/16/2002 2:40:20 PM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S;AmericanInTokyo
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?

337 posted on 04/16/2002 2:45:27 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
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.

338 posted on 04/16/2002 2:47:11 PM PDT by beGlad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Scruffdog
"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?

339 posted on 04/16/2002 2:48:29 PM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
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?

340 posted on 04/16/2002 2:49:26 PM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 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