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."

[jwalsh07]

If and when they mess with the second amendment we, I will bring a whole extended family including the women, will march side by side with you up Pennsylvania Avenue. That is a promise.

Adios.

[goodnesswins]

..."could have damn well supported such a law given all the bravo sierra 'statistics' those groups put out about the relationship of firearms to child deaths. That scares the hell out of me."

Well, there's your problem....the STATISTICS THEY USE are bunko....

[Nick Danger]

they must know in their hearts that something is patently wrong and unacceptable about it and there is no socially redeeming quality to it.

I don't think that's the issue here. It's more at whether government is the right tool to use against it. The history of government is that if you give them a stomper-outer, they don't put it back on the shelf when they're done stomping what you wanted stomped. Instead they form a Department of Stomping, and now there's another bunch of jack-booted thugs running around doing stuff you never intended.

[Abundy]

rights of a group

Groups don't have rights, indivdiuals do. I ain't arguing for the "rights" of pedophiles, since they will still offend and get burned for their actual crimes. I'm arguing for your right not to have your thoughts criminalized in all other areas of your life. We don't need a law that criminalizes thought where no actual child is hurt - we've got enough laws to protect actual children from actual harm.

(I would never argue you have the inclination to create virtual child porn - I know you wouldn't do it to begin with)

[goodnesswins]

Hmmmm....maybe all this would be moot if WE had the RIGHT to publicly burn at the stake any convicted pedophile...

[Abundy]

No, what you keep ignoring is that such virtual depictions can and WILL BE used by pedophiles to break down a real child's natural inhibitions and to elicit curiousity that the pedophile will then exploit to manipulate the child into sexual activity.

That activity is already criminal conductm, when it actually occurs. There is no need to criminalize the image shown to the child - especially when the image is pure thought that MIGHT BE used in the future to commit a crime...again, do you really want to criminalize the possession of all items that MIGHT BE USED to harm a child? I don't.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Why should folks expect the GOVERNMENT to speak out on this issue, when the CHURCH has actively ignored REAL child abuse and sexual misconduct for DECADES.

All 450 folks in Boston cannot be wrong... and it is in EVERY archdioscese, parish and territory.

If the CHRISTIANS have tolerated this crap in their midst, and turned a deaf, inactive ear to the cries of the sexually abused.. it becomes rather silly to get all twisted over "virtual sex" with the same twistedness.

Go after and destroy the real perverts, ACTIVELY and AGRESSIVELY and the market for this crap will dry up. Until the Church does MORE than offer an edict of "we are appalled" and starts putting the noose around the necks of its own resident pedophiles, any standard of moral "clarity" on this issue will remain clouded.

Same goes with abortion. I am not catholic, but if a person IS a catholic, and obtains, or supports abortion, it's time to stop the sacrements, excommunicate and disfellowship them. If they are public servants, priests, or elected officials in the public arena... they should then be PUBLICLY excoriated for the immorality they practice.

Asking the secular government to institute OUR morality, when our leaders are violating it in churches, schools and counseling offices nationwide... while we whistle in the dark... is ludicrous.

Judgement begins at the house of God first... not the supreme court. This ruling was very predictable, based on the behavior now going on in the church... If the government were to shut down every "freespeech and freedom of religion" organization that was harmful to children, currently, the Church would have its doors padlocked tomorrow.

one cannot reap what he did not sow,
cannot teach what he does not know,
...and cannot lead where he will not go.

The pope has called the cardinals to Rome... we shall see how they deal with the corruption.

[UnsinkableMollyBrown]

This is bodes ill for America's future. Do you realize that today, the highest court in the land made it virtually impossible to prosecute ANY child porn. It is now left to police departments to prove that the porn they found on someone's computer is a picture of a real child. That is a virtually impossible task.

I'll say that again - today it became legal to own, share, and create child porn (because no one will ever be able to prove it wasn't done digitally - and they'll soon stop trying). I've never seen a darker day. Do you know what this country will be like in three years after creating an appetite for this awful stuff?

[jwalsh07]

rights of a group

I am well aware that rights are unalienable and vested in individuals. I am also aware that the purpose of government is to protect those rights. Every child in that group has rights and every child in that group becomes more likely to suffer at the hands of a pervert because of this ruling. Thats my position.

One more thing I am aware of is this:

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.

Something the USSC and many members of FR conveniently forget.

[Abundy]

LOL...wouldn't be cruel and unusual IMO...hell, let the punishment fit the crime and put them in a cell with a big, ugly sex offender and give him a weekend pass to make the pedophile his biatch....

Now, I must go spend some time with the family. This has been stimulating [no pun intended you pervs ;^) ] and I would like to thank each and every one of you that responded to my posts for not flaming me...has to be some sort of record here on FR for such a contentious issue that we made it this many posts without a free-for-all...

Thanks again and good night.

[altair]

Are you arguing that women commit sexula abuse on children at the same rate as men?

No, but it would not surprise me if it were true. I have not seen any data on the matter. I have seen data to suggest that women sexually harass in the workplace at the same rate as men.

[ladylib]

I wonder how the Supreme Court would rule if a public school student "drug" user in Georgia appealed to them because his school said that a Luden's Wild Cherry cough drop is the same thing as a controlled narcotic? Do you think they would be smart enough to see the difference?

[Abundy]

One last post...no, I don't forget about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments....check my arguments on the seccession threads. That is the only issue where I have trouble with this ruling - but I also thought we were talking about a Federal Law?

Actually this would be a great case...your State votes, based on this ruling, to leave the Union after petitioning Congress regarding this decision and being rebuffed....would it be legal?????

Great subject for a different thread...and watch how many Statists argue that even this afront to State's Rights - not allowing a State to act to protect its children from pedophiles - is insufficient to justify a State's exit...

[Valpal1]

It is not logical to equate gun ownership with child porn.

Guns actually have their own explicit Constitutional guarantee, porn does not, only emanations of a penumbra that dumbass judges thought up to pursue a liberal agenda.

Guns also have demonstrably useful benefits to the individual including hobbies like target shooting and sport hunting, also for food procurement (yah, people still hunt for sustenance) and for self defense. All of which are constitutially recognized components of the natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and none of which violate the rights of others.

Child porn has no demonstrable useful benefits socially or individually and has been shown to violate the rights of children both as individuals and as a group.

Do not make a mistake in thinking that protecting the latter will some how protect the former. It merely supports confused thinking in both areas. It is much better to fight the battle for clear thinking on both issues and protect both the 1st and 2nd ammendment from perversion.

[Valpal1]

There is no need to criminalize the image shown to the child - especially when the image is pure thought that MIGHT BE used in the future to commit a crime...again, do you really want to criminalize the possession of all items that MIGHT BE USED to harm a child? I don't.

It is not a thought, it is an image. It is not MIGHT BE used, it is a proven phenomena or MO of seductive molestors, there is no maybe about it.

You believe the slippery slope will lead to more "thought crime", so do I, but the thought crime will be dissapproving and speaking out against pedophiles, who will join the homesexual lobby as a protected class from "hate crime".

[Dante3]

Not even one single good argument can be made for legalizing child pornography. There is none. Not for any type of child porn. To support this is as perverted as one can get.

[jwalsh07]

No, but it would not surprise me if it were true. I have not seen any data on the matter. I have seen data to suggest that women sexually harass in the workplace at the same rate as men.

Dream on

[jwalsh07]

You believe the slippery slope will lead to more "thought crime", so do I, but the thought crime will be dissapproving and speaking out against pedophiles, who will join the homesexual lobby as a protected class from "hate crime".

Sheesh, I haven't seen you around before. Always nice to meet a fellow traveler. Good night all.

[SSN558]

Hmmmm. A very interesting paradox. If there is no victim then no crime is committed. Makes sense we can't have laws against thought crime, right? Let me extrapolate this logic a bit. If I create a computer game where you virtually hang politicians from lamp posts, how would the Supremes rule on this one ?

[ikanakattara]

I think both are a concern - the virtual images that will be practically indistinguishable from the real thing, and the clearly unreal animations. "The law is a teacher," as they say, and IMO this ruling will in practicality make it seem "OK" to watch & distribute this stuff.