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 ...
Yeah, and all the debauchery and homosexuality came AFTER someone decided to put up all those naked statues, not the other way around. Right.
Are you assuming that a pedophile's desires just emerge, full blown and developed, out of nowhere?
A bullsh*t legal construct that has the practical effect of creating a class of thoughtcrimes. A dangerous precedent, if you ask me.
I can't prove they ALWAYS do so, but it's already a known fact that humans have all sorts of brain disorders that just happen randomly. Bad genetics, disease, brain injury ... any of these things can and do cause peoples' personalities, likes/dislikes and desires to change in any number or ways. And this is to say nothing of the simple fact that every human being is different and has different likes/dislikes even if their mind is completely "normal." Many people, yes, simply are sick freaks, and do not need any sort of external stimulus to make them that way. If humans in general were that susceptible to every idea put in front of them, there'd be no such thing as an unsuccessful supermarket product, because all any company would have to do is run a single TV ad and at least half the country would be running out the door five minutes later to buy the latest variation on Oreos.
Actually, this law extended past real children having "simulated" sex. It included "virtual" children, i.e. computer animation.
The original law was too vague, and if prosecutors wanted to, they could have gone after "Romeo & Juliet" (she was only 13) and movies like "American Beauty" (a deplorable movie: I felt like I needed to take a shower after having seen it). In both cases, an underage girl was involved in sexual activity. However, in AB, the "underage girl" was actually NOT a minor in real life.
I agree with the sentiment that child porn is bad and dangerous, and anyone involved with it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Hell, I'd stand in line and pay a buck to beat a pedophile with a club, just like most of the other Freepers. However, the part of the law that was struck down was a part defining a "thought crime." The criminal act depicted was never committed. Could this later be extended to movies depicting other criminal acts like theft or murder?
I consider this to be yet another tasteless part of defending the rights of others, like hate speech...
Mark
Advocacy of dope smoking (allegedly victimless crime) is not equal to the advocacy of sexually exploitation of children (a crime with an obvious victim) that is inherent in pornography.
Do terrorist have a free speech right to explosives? There is also the added dimension that child porn is used in the seduction of child victims to desensitize their natural boundaries and elicit curiosity and cooperation. Most pedophiles are seductive molesters rather than violent rapists. There is a definite social benefit and interest in depriving criminals of the tools of their trade.
That isn't what I was trying to do. Most people knows that it a very small percentage of women that are sexual predators, molestors or pedophiles. How many times do you hear about a woman kidnapping, molesting and killing a child? Very seldom.
No doubt they are connected in some way.
With respect to virtual porn there is no child being harmed - the compelling state interest - which is why the law runs afoul of the First Amendment.
Consider how a ruling the other way would allow the proverbial "nose under the tent" in all other areas of life merely to "protect the children."
Law touching on the Second Amendment would exponentially multiply and we would have no recourse left...
But the whole thing still totally creeps me out.
Supply does not creates demand. This flies in the face of basic economics. Demand creates supply by creating a market for a given product or service. This is why my dust bunnies have gone unsold. No one wants them regardless of the abundant supply. The "dust bunny" example disproves your assertion.
This is the problem. Write a good law and this won't happen. The people who write these laws leave them intentionally vauge so they can intrpret them anyway they want time goes by.
That's the point isn't it?
There was a story a few weeks ago about a man who was convicted because he recorded his fantasies in his diary per his shrink's instructions. I doubt that was envisioned by the authors of the law, but the law was so vaguely written that examples like this, or parents with 'cute' pics of their young'uns in the buff are sitting in prison.
(I never would let my wife take pictures like that of our children, because I didn't want them getting embaressed in front of their girlfriends some day.)
My wife and I were talking about this ruling and both agree that there probably is no distinction between either person - each will probably engage in both activities. However, criminalizing what one might do (molest a child) based on expressed thoughts without actual action (merely viewing pornography) is a scarey proposition...hell, the next thing you know anyone subscribing to Guns & Ammo would be subject to arrest for murders they might commit and PlayBoy's subscription list would be incarcerated as future rapists...
Of course if we beat the leftists to the punch and execute them all for future treason based on their political affiliations and past voting records we might be safe...
Congress has EVERY right to do this....and WE should all be writing and encouraging them to do this, but I think our Congress Critters are too chicken....
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.