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."

[general_re]

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?

That seems to be the thrust of Scorpio's post #287. I suppose then that you agree?

[Redcloak]

I'm not the one making the ridiculous assertion that supply creates demand.

[Egg]

Are you suggesting that there's a large number of latent pedophiles who really want to look at child porn but were prevented from doing so by this law? Doesn't seem terribly plausible to me.

I'm suggesting that pedophilia will follow the trend of homosexuality in that as society relaxes its opposition to it, more people succumb to their baser nature and develop an illicit desire for it.

[Dimensio]

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.)

So he's trusting law enforcement to apply common sense? He's an optimist.

[ecomcon]

That sequence of 1s and 0s can be turned into a binary number which can be converted to an integer.

True, but not an unique integer. Conversely, many different files could have the same integer identity.

[Timesink]

"So do some women."

So, what's your point?

My point is, don't try to claim that only men are capable of being into tasteless sexual depictions.

So you don't think that even one snuff film has ever been made?

Nope, sure don't! Read the link. Not one has ever been found. EVER.

[Egg]

I believe that the production of virtual images (which is what we are talking about) [child pornography] is a protected activity under the 1st amendment.

How disappointing.

[BobS]

I'd like to find out what newsgroups the Supremes are subscribed to!

[Dimensio]

Statistical misapplication. Correlation does not imply causality.

Careful, you'll be accused of defending child pornography amongst some people who have a thin grasp on logical constructs.

[Spunky]

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.

I was watching (I think it was O'Reilly) the other day and he had
on a counselor who deals with child molesters. She said
that every single one of them admitted they began
with child pronogrophy. Now admittedly she has not
seen every child rapist in the world, but the statictics
show that it is the course that is taken. Child pron first, then on to the real thing.

[ecomcon]

I'm not the one making the ridiculous assertion that supply creates demand

I'm not so sure that's the case with porn. Sin is not an economic system.

On the other hand, low cost increases consumption.

[Valpal1]

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.

Pornography, including child porn is a product, a commercial product not a form of "speech" and could be regulated or banned on this basis. The travesty of the courts is giving first ammendment protections to things that are not "speech". There is no "right" to sexually desire children, and no "right" to express or portray this desire, photograpically, pictorially, or digitally. SCOTUS is a disgrace to the Constitution (again!).

Congress should rewrite the law, or better yet, statutorily (sp?) redefine it as non protected speech and get in SCOTUS' face on this issue.

[Timesink]

It doesn't have to be ALL THE TIME.

No, it doesn't. Which is why people shouldn't claim it is. It simply debases their main argument due to sloppy and unnecessary exaggeration.

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.

Actually, there's no convincing evidence that ANY person who's ever sued and won has actually gotten their cancer due to smoking. We know that on FR and rail against the Smoking Nazis' lies on this matter all the time. So I don't think we should be using the same argument about a causative effect between child molestors and child porn.

You can't "make the case" through sheer numbers anyway. You have to have some sort of empirical study, or all the anecdotal numbers in the world are meaningless. Even the Smoking Nazi trial lawyers at least have ginned up junk science studies to use in court.

Besides, photography's only existed for 150 years or so. Child molestation's been going on for as long as humans have walked the earth, and in fact used to be openly practiced and accepted (think Ancient Greece) on a level far beyond anything that's going on behind closed doors in modern society. That alone makes the porn=rape causation theory very difficult to accept.

[Dimensio]

There is no "right" to sexually desire children, and no "right" to express or portray this desire, photograpically, pictorially, or digitally.

There is no "right" to desire to smoke marijuana, and no "right" to express or portray this desire, photographically, pictorially or digitally.

Better get Cheech and Chong in prison, as well as any video store that rents out "Up In Smoke."

IIRC one of the points the USSC addressed in the ruling is that advocacy of an illegal act (that is, advocacy of violating a specific law, not necessarily advocating committing a crime against a specific individual), no matter how "evil" the act may be considered, is not in itself illegal.

[Timesink]

Now admittedly she has not seen every child rapist in the world, but the statictics show that it is the course that is taken. Child pron first, then on to the real thing.

It still doesn't prove anything. Say, for example, that you were really into cars. There's all sorts of auto magazines out there - Motor Trend, Car & Driver, etc. Most hardcore car enthusiasts read these magazines every single month for years on end, often starting before they're even old enough to drive, and even though they can only afford to buy a new car once every few years. (And they keep on reading them after buying a new car, too.) However, it doesn't mean they would never buy any cars at all if all the magazines went out of business tomorrow. Also, millions of people buy cars every year without ever buying a single copy of any of those magazines.

The counselor's anecdote is no different. It only proves that given the opportunity, those with a predilection towards pedophilia are likely to obtain child pornography because it's much easier to get their hands on child porn than it is to get their hands on an actual child. Just like it's easier to read about cars than it is to buy one.

[ecomcon]

What is it that makes a crime a "hate" crime?