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."

[Houmatt]

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

No, Janet Reno neglected to enforce Federal obscenity laws. If she did, you had better believe some of these sick perverts would be in prison.

[Condorman]

So it's a computer model of a 7-year-old.

Are you suggesting the programers are molesting it?

If so, I'd say you have too much free time on your hands.

[Houmatt]

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

Pardon? Exactly what do you mean??

[GiovannaNicoletta]

Oh, it's true. I work for a law enforcement agency and boy oh boy could I tell you stories.

That's one thing you can rest assured of. Child rapists first get off on child pornography, then when that doesn't do the trick, they move on to real kids.

I know, I know, unfortunate, inconvenient fact, but a fact nonetheless.

[Vicki]

Fake images or not, it will excite these creatures. They will get their titilation, and then go looking for the real thing.

I agree with you and what else might be created in the virtual community. Some men like depictions of rape and torture. What about snuff films? If the "victims" are not real, but computer generated won't they too be protected? This isn't good.

[Timesink]

I know, I know, unfortunate, inconvenient fact, but a fact nonetheless.

No, it's anecdotal evidence. I don't deny that a huge number of child rapists also posess child porn. But if you're going to say ALL child rapists ALWAYS posess child porn and/or ALWAYS "start off with" child porn before getting frustrated and moving on to real child rape, you have to provide solid empirical evidence.

As the saying goes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[Timesink]

I agree with you and what else might be created in the virtual community. Some men like depictions of rape and torture.

So do some women.

What about snuff films?

Snuff films do not exist. They are urban legends.

[Timesink]

Nobody is trying to corrupt the youth with "dust bunnies", nobody is out there making big bucks off of them, and besides you, nobody ever even heard of them.

Google shows 27,900 hits on "dust bunnies." That's an awful lot of nobodies.

[Dimensio]

Oh, great. I'm sure we can now expect a huge flood of Japanese anime and manga that under the previous law would have been considered illegal child porn, since they involve cartoon images of adult men having sex with *clearly* underage teenage girls.

What, you didn't think that this was happening before? Geez, I could have found as much by checking the Anime section of a local rental store (and it is not a specifically adult-themed retailer).

Mind you, you got one part wrong. It isn't adult men -- the Japanese have this bizarre thing for tentacles (no, I don't watch it but I know some friends who are anime freaks. They don't watch it either, but they often host conventions and the small subset who does watch it goes to those cons.

[Dimensio]

Each picture is not a number, it is an arrangement of two numbers via a coordinate map. A digital "picture" is not an Integer.

Actually every file, regardless of its nature, is a composition of 1s and 0s (yes, there's the issue of file storage and fragmenting -- but fundamentally it's 1s and 0s and those are constant regardless of where the file is stored). That sequence of 1s and 0s can be turned into a binary number which can be converted to an integer.

That technical terminology can be used to confuse the issue, but I doubt that the court will go that far -- I don't see software piracy being legitimized as simply the transfer of very large specific integers.

[Be active]

Lets see... pornography for adults is now considered normal. Priests molesting children. Now SOME child pornography is OK.

Yes, we are becoming desensitized to everything and are falling quickly.

IF THIS BOTHERS YOU ... YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. http://www.parentstv.org

[Dimensio]

The spirit of true LAW permiates the entire universe, and can be recognized by anyone who lives in accordance to IT/GOD.

I've heard this assertion before but I've never gotten anyone to present evidence to support it.

[Vicki]

So do some women.
So, what's your point?

What about snuff films? Snuff films do not exist. They are urban legends.
So you don't think that even one snuff film has ever been made? The point is that someone had to die to make the film, with technology a real person need not die. There are people that these films appeal to.

[Dimensio]

It is a product of no social benifit and significant social harm, so outlaw it.

That argument could be used against many forms of "speech"; not just "virtual" child porn but advocacy of unpopular forms of government and advocacy of repeal of various laws.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

LOL. You nailed it.

[Spunky]

A child must be harmed for the real stuff to be made.
No children are harmed in making the fake stuff.

Oh! so the harm only comes in the producing of the sicko stuff.
What about the harm that comes to the children from
the pediofiles who view it? It will not matter to them
if the picture is of a real child or computer generated,
they will get their kicks either way. Statistics
have proven that child molesters view child prono.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

It doesn't have to be ALL THE TIME.

There's no convincing evidence that EVERY person who has sued tobacco companies and has won got cancer through smoking, but because one or two may have, then the precedent is set to shaft the tobacco companies whenever you get cancer or emphysema.

Same thing with this. Enough child rapists start out with pornography to make the case that it is a fact that MOST child rapists will consume pornography and once the porn thrill is gone, MOST child rapists start assaulting real kids.

I can't wait for the lawsuits to begin.

[Dimensio]

No court has ever ruled that obscene material is legally protected-until today.

They ruled on obscenity statues? I thought that it was just over the classification of images wherein no real minors are involved (drawings, computer renderings or adults "depicted" as minors) as "child pornography".