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."

[Vicki]

I'm only referring to female murderers who were also sexually perverted. There aren't very many. Just look back on all the infamous serial killers. Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Richard Speck to name a few.

There was a serial female killer in the San Francisco area, but she killed her boarders for their social security checks. I'm referring to killers who are sexually motivated.

[Houmatt]

There is a legal word for a film depicting an actual murder--it is called "evidence". In a broad sense, there are lots of snuff films. Taken by nazi camera crews at Auschwitz, for example. But by a commercial vendor? Dream on.

I never said anything about a commercial vendor.

I said snuff films could very well exist, and by my definition, not yours.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Do you believe there is any legal right for people to view (fictitional) images of children engaged in sex?"

The question is not whether there is a legal right for people to do this, but rather whether the government has grounds to make the act of viewing what can best be described as an advanced cartoon illegal.

They do not.

[Condorman]

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

You: Pardon? Exactly what do you mean??

I read your post. That you consider the acts you describe representative of "most porn" suggests you should spend more time outside...

Regards,

[Condorman]

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

You forgot to mention that I also eat kittens, spit on the elderly, and leave the toilet seat up. It's all there, man, you just have to look for it. ;^)

Cheers!

[max61]

Do you realize that today, the highest court in the land made it virtually impossible to prosecute ANY child porn.

This is a patently absurd statement. Have you read the decision?.

---max

[max61]

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.

Children do not have rights.

---max

[Torie]

SCOTUS has a heavy bias in favor of the First Amendment, and I applaud that. I am a free speech militant. But I wonder how much evidence was before the court that such pics might affect behavior. Maybe the evidentiary record was simply not strong enough. Maybe if it becomes so, SCOTUS will change. But to traduce the First Amendment based on intuition absent evidence is simply not something I would subscribe to. You may not like the bright line here, but maybe you will like it better when it comes to CFR. Of course, is SCOTUS upholds CFR in its entirely, I will feel constrained to revise and extend my remarks.

[goodnesswins]

"Can you imagine what would happen if the same reasoning was applied to other areas of law?"

It is interesting that some here "imagine what would happen if the same reasoning was applied to other areas of law?...while some of us here are scolded for imagining what might happen to children, as a result of this? Just a thought.

[UnsinkableMollyBrown]

That case upheld a prohibition on the distribution and sale of child pornography, as well as its production, because these acts were “intrinsically related” to the sexual abuse of children

All the suspect must do now is claim that he created the image on a computer. Photographic evidence in the suspect's custody is no longer enough for prosecution.

[altair]

Interesting, but do note that on page 4 they categorize the data as coming from "a small and non-scientific sample of contributing law enforcement agences." Also most of the data appears to have been collected by the Clinton DOJ and I don't trust them whatsoever. Or rather, I trust them to come up with whatever figures suited their agenda of the day.

[Houmatt]

I read your post. That you consider the acts you describe representative of "most porn" suggests you should spend more time outside...

If you have been keeping score, you know I was a long time fan of porn until 1998. And I worked in an adult bookstore for nearly two years. So I think I speak from experience.

The first two references I made are actual scenes from actual movies produced by one Rob Black; the former an Evil Angel release called "Gang Bang Angels", the latter an Extreme Associates release mentioned in depth in a recent episode of Frontline.

A cursory look at charts for adult video sales and rentals show a repeated and consistent presence from Evil Angel.

The third? Pick up a current S/M vid and you will see what I am talking about.

And do not even get me started with Max Hardcore.

[Vicki]

You are right on. They have tied the hands of law enforcement. It will be nearly impossible to prove child porn. Today was indeed a dark day and a victory for child pornographers.

Parents watch over your children.

[Valpal1]

I was a long time fan of porn until 1998.

Okay, you've obviously have familiarity with the subject and possibly a story to share and tweaked my curiosity. Why did you cease to be fan?

[general_re]

They have tied the hands of law enforcement.

They said the same thing after Miranda. It wasn't true then, and I don't think it's true now.

[Valpal1]

I would like to live in a world where the 1st Ammendment did not apply to child porn, but was reserved for actual speech, political speech as intended, rather than the pecadillos of perverts and hedonists.

The overbroad and indiscriminate application of 1st Ammendment protections is turning this nation into a sodomite's delight.

[Don Myers]

"This isn't good."

I agree. It may be legal, but it is bad news for the good guys.