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."

[donh]

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.

I once again invite you to show us a specific example of virtual pornography doing specific actual tort harm to a specific actual child.

[donh]

Oh, please. You almost sound a kiddy porn defender. Is that the impression you wish to give?

If no child was used in its production, then I most certainly do wish to defend the right to publish and read kiddie porn.

There is a very good reason why the Bill of Rights reads the way it does. Congress is not to get into the business of deciding what are allowed ideas, feeling, or speech. This is not a slippery slope, it is simply an abrupt end of freedom of speech. How would you like it if a humanist democratic congress decided that worshipping God as your religious commitments dictate is obscene? This is not a far-fetched example, it is vengefully historical.

[donh]

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?

Yes, I have been reading your Ad Hominem slurs. I don't care if green slime from Jupiter instigated the Supreme Court review. Who but the self-interested ever pursue legal remedy in court? This is an annoyingly illogical attack on the issue. Snick, Snick, Snick, eh, Ms. DeFarge?

[donh]

You see, it does not matter if the child pornography is real or manufactured, regardless of what SCOTUS said.

Ah, I assume, then, that you are now ready to produce a specific example of a specific child specifically done tort harm as a demonstrateable direct, primary causal result of virtual kiddy porn. I am breathless with anticpation.

[donh]

As someone else said, when it becomes harder to prosecute child pornographers, this country is finished.

People can be found to say most anything. Extracting some usefully tidbit of sense is the trick. This country is finished when the DofI & Bill of Rights--which is what it's about--is dead, and not a second before.

[donh]

does not matter if the child pornography is real or manufactured,

Are you completely obtuse to the point upon which the Supreme Court decision hangs? It is the children used in making kiddy porn that are hurt. This is the philosophical basis of the law banning child porn. If you use no actual children, no matter how realistic you make it, you have no actual victim. Any arguments about "creating a climate" of child abuse apply equally to "creating a climate" of abortion clinic bombings by chastising abortion from the pulpit, or "creating a climate" of high school gang shootings by permitting the sale of handguns. Do you stand equally ready to gut the 2nd Amendment and the freedom of religion Clause "for the children"?

[donh]

When authorities go into homes of sex offenders and find kiddy porn in it, they are not really, they are just imagining it.

What is being imagined, out of whole cloth, is a causal chain demonstrating that child pornography induces child abuse. No such chain has even been demonstrated to any courtroom's satisfaction. As I mentioned before, the Nixon Administration's Pornography Commission, as hand-picked a kangaroo court as has been seen this century, could not find any such evidence.

It is totally unsurprising that men convicted of child abuse have child pornography--this in no manner demonstrates that one causes the other. I'll bet there is virtually a 100% correlation between men arrested for child abuse and the possession of bed sheets. Does that mean bed sheets cause child abuse?

[Houmatt]

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.

Hahahahahaha!

Remember what I said about Phillip Klass? You are beginning to sound more like him. But I do not think even he had said UFO's have to stand to courtroom scrutiny.

I know what you are suggesting. You are saying if I think snuff films could very well be in existence these days, I should present you with one in order to convince you. Otherwise, you will remain convinced they do not exist.

[Houmatt]

If no child was used in its production, then I most certainly do wish to defend the right to publish and read kiddie porn.

This tells me everything I need to know about you and your attitude.

[donh]

I know what you are suggesting. You are saying if I think snuff films could very well be in existence these days, I should present you with one in order to convince you. Otherwise, you will remain convinced they do not exist.

If you want to suggest that snuff films are a serious, impactful social problem that should govern what laws we are to make--which is what I thought I was hearing-- , asking for one stunk up, lonely example is not out of line.

For cocktail discussion purposes, sure, there COULD be snuff films. For the purposes you appear to be pressing, that will not suffice. Making laws requires a bit more seriousness of purpose.

[donh]

This tells me everything I need to know about you and your attitude.

...that I don't take advice about laws that we should have from hysterics? Let's try to keep some perspective. We aren't talking about a crime that rises to the level of seriousness of, say forceable rape, or kidnapping, or murder. It is inappropiate to treat it like some supernatural force that threatens the Republic, and renders our concern for our Constitution, or proportional punishment for proportional harm mute.