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."

[concerned about politics]

Has anyone noticed that when a child has been raped, or raped and killed, the crimminal always is caught with kiddie porn in his home?

[Condorman]

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?

Dude... you need to find a new hobby...

[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.

Yeah, pretty much....

[Timesink]

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.

This straw man has already been tried more than once in this thread, and quickly slapped down. Today's ruling does nothing to make your sick little scenario one iota more legal than it was yesterday. Anything involving IDENTIFIABLE children remains completely illegal, period.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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?

Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion deals with this directly. He agrees with the majority that the current law is unconstitutional, but argues that, if it ever becomes impossible to tell real child porn from virtual images, it would be constitutional to pass a law saying that real-looking images will be assumed to be real unless the defendant can prove they're not (presumably, you can save the computer files you used to generate the virtual image).

[Timesink]

The First Amendment protects POLITICAL speech

This is just plain wrong. The First Amendment protects ALL speech that doesn't cause direct harm to others.

[Dave S]

I find it hard to believe that a hard-core pedophile will substitute the real thing with a cartoon.

Who said cartoon? Did you ever see Forrest Gump?

[Bonaparte]

"...It can be supplied by a culture just as well."

Good to see that you got the point I was making to general_re. Ever since the Garden of Eden, people have been claiming, in one form or another, that "the devil made them do it."

If I incite you to riot, I have committed a criminal offense.

If you actually take me up on my suggestion and riot, then you have committed another criminal offense.

The "devil," in whatever guise, can only tempt, but each of us is responsible for his choices.

[concerned about politics]

Yeah, pretty much....

Yep. You'll be called a "pediphobe" for speaking out against it.
Remember, "pediphiles are just like you."
"Adult/child sex may actually be good for children." Read the book. Listen to the acamemia elite. They support it, so "you should too!"

[Timesink]

Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion deals with this directly....

I didn't know that; I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet. Thanks, LL.

[garv]

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?

The right to drive an SUV is not in the constitution. Driving has been determined by the courts to be a privilege, not a right and its regulation has been left to the states. Since most people would argue that in the modern USA driving is far more essential to your freedom of movement than virtual kiddie porn is to your speech rights, why the dichotomy? I'm certain that people denied their "right" to drive would gladly trade in their kiddie porn for the privilege. Why are some unenumerated rights worthy of unfettered exercise while others are not? Could it be because the founders intended for those decisions to made in local communities rather than the central government?

[Condorman]

Has anyone noticed that when a child has been raped, or raped and killed, the crimminal always is caught with kiddie porn in his home?

Statistical misapplication. Correlation does not imply causality.

[Dave S]

we all know the difference between Nabokov and Flynt, for God's sake.

I wouldnt be so sure. Have you met some of the people here on Free Republic. We had one loon today callng the Supreme Court Satanic.

[Timesink]

Statistical misapplication. Correlation does not imply causality.

He also hasn't provided any proof that his claim is even true.

[concerned about politics]

Virtual Kid Helps Understand Real Kids ( and hunters understand their prey)

How kids think, the virtual child

[Redcloak]

You still haven't explained why no one will buy my dust bunnies. I have a supply. According to you, the demand should materialize as though by some iron law of economics. I'm supplying them, there is no natural need in humans to have them, but there should be an induced demand, just as there is with tobacco. Right?

[Condorman]

I have yet to find a 5-year old that said "I want to be a drug addict when I grow up" or "I can't wait to become an alcoholic"

But you will find a 5-year-old who loves to spin in circles until he gets dizzy and falls down. An interest/desire/tendency to deliberately alter--chemically or otherwise-- one's perceptions have been around since the dawn of humanity.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

These are the same people on whom we are depending to strike down CFR.

BTW, what does the Supreme Court have against kids, anyway? First they make it legal to slaughter them, now the child rapists can have yet another avenue to fuel their crimes against children.

What gives?

[Dimensio]

This is a great victory for sick perverts who photoshop the faces of small kids from magazines and catalogs onto hard core porn pictures of barely 18 hairless teens being savaged.

I'm not entirely certain, but I'm not sure that this much was ruled on. The only thing that I know for certain that was addressed was "virtual" images, either drawings or completely computer-rendered, where no human subjects were involved at all and images of real humans where all subjects involved were of legal age but presented within context as "underage" characters.