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 ...
No, I didn't know your history. Based on your experience, would you agree that, much like mainstream film, porn has several distinct genres--SM/BD being only one of them? I would postulate further that the casual consumer rarely frequents adult video stores. I don't doubt that you've seen your share of freaky weirdos, as well as some normal looking people. But I can't say with any certainty that your experience as an adult bookstore employee is representative. I would also be interested in your honest evaluation of the people renting or buying hardcore S/M stuff vs. the people who got regular, run-of-the-mill XXX vids vs. the people who bought an adult toy or two and then went home, never to be seen again. You probably had regulars and one-time customers, and I'll bet there was a distinct difference in the two.
I'll see if I can draw another parallel. Let's say that you wanted to investigate passenger conditions on airlines. So you went to the airport and asked randome passengers at baggage claim as to whether or not their flight was crowded. Even if your sample was perfectly random, you would draw the erroneous conclusion that more planes are crowded than not. Why? Because of faulty data. People on crowded planes are by definition going to be over-represented in the sample, skewing the results. It's not the data, it's the methodology, which is why annecdotal evidence is often unreliable.
In other words, your adult bookstore patrons were self-selected and not necessarily an even cross-section of porn users. Hardcore porn, and especially SM/BD, is a particular taste. Even on the 'Net you have to go looking for it. You'll see pop-up windows, a few boobs and maybe a BJ or two, but you're going to have to take action to get to the main pages. The really fringe stuff will require time and effort to find. Most casual users will download some pics, or maybe just subscribe to Penthouse and be done with it. I don't know of too many well-adjusted people who make weekly trips to the adult video store. I do know some weird people, including a few who sell porn, and from everything I've gathered, the "Frequent Flogger" cards are reserved for a limited minority.
Your experience may vary, but even stipulating that, you cannot lay claim to a full slice of the American public.
Sure the Evil Angel productions can make an appearance in the Adult Video Top 40 Countdown, but porn goes beyond vids alone. Earl and Martha Branscombe, living in a small town 40 miles north of Omaha, might have a worn copy of the Sept 1983 issue of Playboy, but I doubt they subscribe to the Max Hardcore flick of the week program.
Most people gather in small groups, and after a couple of glasses of wine shyly admit in hushed tones that, "Yes, Bob and I rented an adult video together for the first time last week." It was "interesting" and they are "glad they did it," but they "probably won't be doing it again anytime soon."
Please see message #269 in this thread.
And what about the one percent?
I have made the point that despite your assertion, pornography of a particularly degrading nature is part of the "mainstream" and is popular.
So, in response, you seek to change the subject by way of a long-winded tome. But to put it in a much simpler way, one that does not waste so much bandwidth, you want me to provide an analysis of the average porn patron.
Since this has absolutely nothing to do with anything that has been previously discussed, I am going to take this as it should, a possible record for the world's longest non-sequitur, and call it a day.
Well, now, your unstated definition, eh? That could cover rather a lot of ground, eh? At the risk of repeating myself:
There is a legal word for a film depicting an actual murder--it is called "evidence".
I doubt very much that there is any actual occurance of a snuff film, by anyone's reasonable definition. You are welcome to contradict me with a concrete example.
You sound like Phillip Klass, whose skepticism about the existence of UFO's comes from never having seen one.
So what if you doubt their existence? How in the world can you prove they do not exist? Have you taken a look around lately? For all the C-R-A-P that has been happening, things we could not even imagine becoming reality.
Is it that hard to believe that taboo has been crossed?
I don't disagree with that. I said NO such thing about "only the man has sinned". You're putting words in my mouth to make up for your heartless attitude towards kiddie porn. Changing my point and using idiotic distractions won't work.
"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. "
I don't like how Britany dresses or behaves for her songs. I don't know that she is a whore. A whore is someone who uses their body FOR sex. Do you know that Britany uses her body for sex? I know she uses her voice to make money and how she dresses is far from modest. According to how you define a whore, a choir singer could be a whore because they "use their body" to make money. Good grief.
"And yes I'm a sinner, but a saved one."
Good ... so am I and I let the Bible define what is a whore. I don't twist definitions to fit my holier than thou agenda.
Translation: I can't be bothered to read all of those words, so I'm going to pretend I've won and call it a day.
Tell you what, how about next time I intersperse my post with XXX S&M jpegs to capture your attention for longer than 30 seconds? Then there can be an actual exchange of ideas, instead of you refusing to defend your as-yet unsubstatiated generalizations. How's that grab you?
Let's try again. You claimed that abusive, extreme S&M videos are part of mainstream porn consumption. I say that your assumptions are based on a nonrepresentative sample, and that while consumers of hardcore vids exist, videos are but a small subset of all porn consumption.
Care to take a swing at actually answering a post or do you want to trade barbs for a while longer?
Judging by Roe, Doe, PBA, Catholic Priests in Mass and the advent of virtual child pornography as mainstream entertainment, I would have to agree with you.
Thats why Rehnquist, Scalia and the patronly lady from Arizona dissented.
In other words the court has ruled that there is no difference between literary work and virtual child porn, it all falls under the same rubrick. Very discriminating of them.
By the way, what are the odds that at least two of the justices who voted to norm pedophile art will vote to uphold CFR?
You sound like Phillip Klass, whose skepticism about the existence of UFO's comes from never having seen one.
Seeing is one thing, believing is another thing. Things that pass an evidentiary test such that you should base laws on them are something else again. Are you now wanting me to class snuff films with UFOs in that regard?
So what if you doubt their existence?
So what is that I, quite reasonably, don't expect us to base laws that press on the Bill of Rights on imagined evidence of concern. In the Middle ages we had a legal notion called "spectral evidence": evidence based on dreams, which was deemed good enough to round up, torture and kill thousands of innocent old women. It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.
How in the world can you prove they do not exist?
I cannot, just as I cannot prove that witches didn't really exist in the Middle Ages.
Have you taken a look around lately? For all the C-R-A-P that has been happening, things we could not even imagine becoming reality.
No, but it is hard to take seriously an apparent attack on the right to freedom of speech as explicitly laid out in the Bill of Rights, on the basis of harm you imagine is probably happening.
This also applied to the argument here that virtual child porn should be banned because pedophiles show it to their potential victims. If, in fact, you can drum up scientific evidence that would pass muster in an objective courtroom review, that virtual porn is an epidemically virulent, potent, primary cause of children "giving in" to their pedophile predators, I'm ready to give it a hearing--until them, I'll continue to think of it as childish, unrealistic simple-minded argument garnered whole cloth from someone's overactive imagination and prudish lack of realistic understanding of how a pedophile and his victim could possibly relate to each other.
Is it that hard to believe that taboo has been crossed?
Yes, it is hard to believe. Criminals who commit murder very rarely want to provide documentary evidence of their crimes to crime labs. At any rate, it is certainly not a social force to be contended with by trampling on the Bill of Rights.
And what the hell does that have to do with the possible existence of sunff films? What does that have to do with the definite existence of child pornography?
No, but it is hard to take seriously an apparent attack on the right to freedom of speech as explicitly laid out in the Bill of Rights, on the basis of harm you imagine is probably happening.
But, of course. When authorities go into homes of sex offenders and find kiddy porn in it, they are not really, they are just imagining it.
What a bunch of malarkey.
This also applied to the argument here that virtual child porn should be banned because pedophiles show it to their potential victims. If, in fact, you can drum up scientific evidence that would pass muster in an objective courtroom review, that virtual porn is an epidemically virulent, potent, primary cause of children "giving in" to their pedophile predators, I'm ready to give it a hearing--until them, I'll continue to think of it as childish, unrealistic simple-minded argument garnered whole cloth from someone's overactive imagination and prudish lack of realistic understanding of how a pedophile and his victim could possibly relate to each other.
Oh, please. You almost sound a kiddy porn defender. Is that the impression you wish to give?
Have you been reading any of my other posts here in this thread? Do you have any idea who was opposing the CPPA and why?
The Free Speech Coalition was, the legal arm of the pornography industry. And it was because, among other things, there was no exemption for "artistic merit".
And don't you even realize what this means? How can a DA prosecute someone who only has to say his kiddy porn stash is not real? We all know what people can do with computers nowadays. In fact, defendants in the Operation: Candyman bust are already perched to do that very thing.
You see, it does not matter if the child pornography is real or manufactured, regardless of what SCOTUS said. Kiddy porn by any other name is STILL kiddy porn. But because of the actions of SCOTUS, this form of child porn has suddenly become legal, and the puveryors of this particular kind of filth have been given carte blanche.
As someone else said, when it becomes harder to prosecute child pornographers, this country is finished.
Don't curse at me because you can't be bothered to follow a chain of reasoning. The rather painfully obvious connection is that the evidence you have mustered has about the same pursuasive power, under courtroom scrutiny, as the spectral evidence that condemned witches. I once again invite you to present us with a specific actual example.
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.