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 ...
There IS a constitutional right to drive an SUV.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Since the Feds weren't granted the power to dictate what you cannot drive, you have that right.
Now the issue comes when we drive on state-owned roads. There, the courts have determined driving is a privelege.
Not the same thing unless you consider children being run over and killed as video fun and games only---do you?
This is not even apples and oranges!
Libertarians are so far out of reality they would object to the guns being taken away from son of sam david bezerkowitz as a police state conspiracy. Basically in a sane society based on laws this would not even come up in conversation or a court matter...even abortion---killing of children is on the criminal side no matter what the USSC decides.
Sicho--pschyco rights are criminal--non constitutional in a sane--civil society not this devilcrat America that is evolving---the black lagoon constitution creature monster that is being dredged up from hell called libertarianism/anarchy!
An excellent analogy. You've heard of putting your foot in your mouth? You just shoved your whole leg in there.
The pedophiles will not be happy with virtual children any more than Coke drinkers were happy with New Coke. They both want the real thing.
And with this ruling, virtual sex between or involving children becomes normative. The more people see it, the more normal it seems. And guess what? Advertising works! Thats why companies budget so much money for it. More images of virtual child pornography will result in more abuse of children.
Abortion began as a first trimester thing with Roe and Doe expamnded it to 6 months. Today we kill'em on the way out. There's a name for that slide into depravity, isn't there?
And SEXUAL advertising works best.....appealing to the animal/base in everyone.....how destructive and low we'll go is the question... guess we haven't bottomed out yet.
I personally don't consult serial murder-rapists who are eager to pin their moral failings on agencies outside themselves about questions of social justice. Call it a whim, if you like.
So we should demand that Congress pass a law that says Grand Theft Auto (or whatever that stupid PS2 game is that is so hot right now) is not acceptable "speech" because it might give kids the idea that killing cops is cool and therefore will/might lead to a whole generation of cop killers?
Come on.
As distasteful as that game is to me, it ain't real, therefore it ain't a crime. Same for virtual kiddie porn. Both are disgusting and I don't want to be around people that view kiddie porn, real or virtual, but I don't think Americans should be criminalizing thought...we made it this far past 1984 without Orwell's vision becoming reality; why advocate we create such a society now?
Exactly, exactly, exactly. IIRC, you are a prosecuting attorney yourself, yes? If I am not conflating you with someone else, I am glad to see that someone in your position "gets it."
'1984' bump.
What part of "congress shall make no law" do you think requires me to look elsewhere for extensive analysis?
Uh, now, you are making an assumption. They may not have existed at one time, but, as I am sure you know, people are getting darker and sicker by the day.
Ever see the film "8mm"? In the film, it is revealed a deceased millionaire had in his posession a snuff film. He had been told they could not find one for him, so he simply hired someone to have one made. Why? Because he could.
Now, granted, that was indeed just a movie, but don't you think someone with the money and the time could have something like this done for his own personal collection?
If you do not, I think you are seriously being unrealistic.
Careful, if some of the posters have their way you'll get a visit from the real police investigating your virtual crimes...
Is this a joke?
Do you consider hostess clubs/dial-a-girlfriend outfits where the ladies dress up as school girls child pornography? (Those disturb me a lot more than the manga).
I don't know how many school girls get groped on the trains. I do know I was groped by a woman on a crowded train.
This is the vision of Liberty for America held by the libertarian.
Puhleeze.
So what about depictions of murder?
If depictions of murder could be used into desensitizing children and eliciting sexual behavior, they should also be criminalized. However, since they can't be used to manipulate children into cooperating in their own sexual exploitation, they present no problem.
The problem with child porn is not that it stimulates pedophiles, but that pedophiles use it to stimulate children into cooperating in their own victimization. It is the mental and emotional manipulation of the child by a cunning adult that is as equally harmful and sometimes more harmful than the actual physical harm. It is a vicious thing they do, betraying faith and trust, twisting admiration and affection, scarring children permanently and to the marrow to satisfy their personal sexual desire. Why should we not outlaw photographic, pictorial and digital reproductions of such a vile act of exploitation and violation.
Using your tenth amendment example, if my community dictates that I cannot posess an unregistered vehicle on my private property then why can't it restrict my ability to create, distribute or posess virtual kiddie porn?
No...I'd say that humankind has lost another one. ARE there NO limits?
libertarians are social liberals who don't make sense---
all spin and flip-flops---
the 'pretty' twin from the ugly liberal cult--clan!
Same cave--village!
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.