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."

[Calico Cat]

How is that statement 'patently absurd'? The Justice Department, which investigates cases of 'real' child pornography, stated the same thing: if computer technology makes it impossible to distinguish between a REAL child used in pornography and one created by computer, how do they prosecute the manufacturer? All the maker will have to do is to claim that the children used in its loathsome product are computer generated. Those who possess this crap will be able to do the same thing. ONE MORE THING: why were 'legitimate' pornographers the plaintiffs in this case? Do they smell money? Will mainstream porn sites now feature links to 'virtual' child porn? They've always claimed to eschew this stuff; I think that you're seeing the true faces of those who create porn. Anything for a buck.

[Goldsters]

"Once this crap becomes widespread and legal and tolerated, it will become almost impossible to sift out many cases of actual child rape and abuse and use for kiddie porn, since the "real" kiddie porn will just float along with all the legal "virtual kiddie porn"."

Wow. I just posted the same thought on another forum.

I think this particular law was too broad. But if they do adapt it to cover only realistic virtual child pornography, then it will be a really tough one.

Even as it is now, it will be close to impossible to stop the real thing since all they have to do is give it a few clicks before uploading to make it "virtual". So we are really putting kids at risk unless someone is prepared to carefully check out all these new pics to determine what is real and what is memorex...

[Goldsters]

The problem I see is not in protecting free speach, but in that we are not deserving of free government any longer.

Consider the following quote:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -- John Adams

Public virtue, as they called it, was a widely understood principle during the founding period. When public virtue is lost the ability to self government is lost also.

The Hymn, America The Beautiful really drives this point home..."Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law."

No one has responded to that, but it seems to be a good point well worth considering. So... Bump. =]

[Goldsters]

...so I look up and see that this has been further discussed already in the 450 posts since then and decide to put down the wine glass and read the entire thread before further comment. ~8|

[Calico Cat]

Mike--do you have ANY IDEA how much more difficult this makes prosecution? For God's sake--doing 'a little detective work'? What if somebody is producing this s#!t on his home computer, using kids in the neighborhood? Or his own children? Not every child in child pornography is kidnapped off the streets and is listed as 'missing'; many (if not most) are used by 'friends' and family. How are the police supposed to track these kids down? Many of the images come from overseas. Are you prepared to fund law enforcement and INTERPOL to fully investigate each case? Are you? Or would you rather that they just stop investigating these cases and accept the 'progressive' cause of tolerance of 'intergenerational sex'? I can't tell you how this Supreme Court decision sickens me. I have a hard time believing that I ever considered myself a 'liberal'--if you'd told me fifteen years ago that my opinions about the world, the human race and our government would change so radically, I wouldn't have believed you. But I have changed. I believe that this court decision is going to enrage a lot of people.

[Abundy]

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.

There is a difference - as an attorney, most of the Socialist mischief that has been created in our society via lawsuits and the Courts comes from what appears to be a good ruling being twisted and perverted by attorneys with an agenda. So, what I, and others, are saying about applying this case, if the ruling had gone the other way, to other areas of life is a very real fear.

Your points about viewing images leading to actual crimes against children is also a very real fear.

The difference is that this law attempted to criminalize thought prior to that thought becoming an action. Pure thought, no matter how abhorrent, cannot ever be criminalized, lest we all start sliding down a very slippery slope.

For the State to prove a conspiracy to commit anything the State must show that "substantial steps" were taken in preparation to commit an actual crime. This law would have eliminated such a requirement prior to criminalizing a thought.

Now, if Johnny Perv creates a virtual image of the boy two doors down and details plans to rape him, I think a case could be made that the virtual image was of a specific person and the Johnny Perv took substantial steps in his plan to commit child abuse. However, I'm still not sure how we could create a law criminalizing even that fact pattern without running afoul of the Constitution - if he keeps the plan to himself then there is no conspiracy; and no harm is actually done until he abuses the child...

It is a sad state of affairs that we are even discussing this issue; sad because there are predators amongst us that should die a slow, horrible death. However, I'm not ready to give up Constitutional protections and criminalize pure thought in the name of "protecting the children."

Sorry, too scary to give that much power to the Gov.

[Uncle Fud]

Trying to stop societal decline with legislation makes about as much sense as trying to stop skin cancer with Band-Aids.

Murder is illegal because Americans believe it's wrong, not vice versa.

If you want to change the culture, you're going to have to CHANGE THE CULTURE.

[biblewonk]

The purpose of government is to protect people from being harmed by others, not to protect us from ourselves.

Says who?

[biblewonk]

Sexually exploiting women,

99 percent of the sluts in porn are volunteers.

[fivecatsandadog]

Yes, I saw the movie. But what does "Forrest Gump" have to do with virtual pedophilia? I must have missed that part.

[nmh]

"Good decision. One small step against BIG GOVERNMENT and THE MAN."

I see we have a pedaphile amongst us. No NORMAL human being would see this as a victory. It's very sad that "free speech" now includes what is evil.

[nmh]

The Hymn, America The Beautiful really drives this point home..."Confirm thy soul in self-control, Thy liberty in law."

The majority of the people don't even know the words to that song. Our new standard to graviate towards is being out of control, not "self control". In fact, the more evil and rebellious people are, the more you are admired in society. So it only follows that kiddie porn, real or simulated should be acceptable.

[nmh]

"Sexually exploiting women,"

"99 percent of the sluts in porn are volunteers."

Yes, porn sexually exploits women. When men, women or children are troubled whether they "volunteer" for it or not doesn't matter. The fact is that they are taken advantage of in a manner that scars them for life. Recovery becomes less probable as time passed.

You're handle "biblewonk" is misleading. Your tone and what you see clearly indicates you are not of the Christian faith. Why, you're not better than a slut. You're just another heartless, arrogant sinner.

[biblewonk]

Yes, porn sexually exploits women. When men, women or children are troubled whether they "volunteer" for it or not doesn't matter. The fact is that they are taken advantage of in a manner that scars them for life. Recovery becomes less probable as time passed.

A porn 'star', excluding children, and a prostitute are exactly the same thing. It is they who are using their bodies to make money. You sound like someone that things that when a whore and a whore monger get together only the man has sinned. Guess what? whore is a bible term.

I consider Britney spears on down to the lowest gutter whore to all be whores in that they are using their bodies and their sexuality to earn money.

And yes I'm a sinner, but a saved one.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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

No, he's a statist. Rehnquist has always voted for the prosecution side in every court case-- unlike, say, Scalia, who takes the Bill of Rights seriously.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Can you imagine what would happen if the same reasoning was applied to other areas of law? A barkeep is fined for serving patrons who look like they are underage. Towns ban bidis (small Indian cigarettes) because they look too much like joints and make the job of the police more difficult. De-automaticized rifles are outlawed because they will give people experience in using the full-automatic, illegal versions. Cars are no longer allowed to look fast because it might make people think it is OK to speed. What, you are against some of these proposals?!?!?! Don't you care about the children?!?!?!

Well put, and worth repeating.

[iconoclast]

Thank God. This would have been the first step towards government censorship of all sorts of things that had nothing at all to do with child porn.

I think, next to my fear of censorship catching on in this country, is my dread of an elephant stampede down my street.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I think, next to my fear of censorship catching on in this country, is my dread of an elephant stampede down my street.

So you're not worried about laws against "hate speech"?

[max61]

Read the decision and answer your own question instead of assuming.

The last thing the Justice Department cares about is justice.

---max