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 ...
You know in your heart that this is NOT what the Founders had in mind when they insisted on a free speech clause.
I am not interested in what they “had in mind” unless they took it out of their mind, put it on paper, and made it the law of the land.
Too many people claim infallibility in reading the minds of men who’ve been dead for 200 years.
Yeah, old Tom Jefferson was really against it. ha ha. Whether or not he had sex with Sally Hemmings, he did sell her off later in life to cover some of his debts.
Seriously, this is what a lot of the "virtual kiddie porn" consists of, as reported in many legal cases. It looks exactly like kiddie porn, the only difference being that the bodies used are (theoretically) over 18 while the faces are not.
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".
Cyber cops then will have the almost impossible task of stopping the real rape and abuse of real children for kiddie porn by catching the pornographers in the act.
It's called a figure of speech. Learn it; deal with it.
See my reply 47. You're sounding ridiculously uninformed.
They won't take note. Your talking about the same people who will censor all kinds of internet sites (everything from anti-government, racist, porn, etc.) because it's "for the children/women/minorities", etc.
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."
TJ may have been your favorite founder, but he was the more liberal of them, and consequently one of my least admired.
Such are they confident that there is nothing socially wrong with this. If they can't, then they must know in their hearts that something is patently wrong and unacceptable about it and there is no socially redeeming quality to it.
Dear God. This post is full of so many logical fallacies I hardly know where to begin.
1) You've made a classic liberal-style straw man argument (also known as "lying"). Nobody here is saying they "see little wrong with" such material.
2) You make this "argument" knowing full well that posting such stuff is against the rules of FR, and anyone that did post such a thing would have their account yanked within seconds.
3) You lie by attempting to claim that anyone who supports the SCOTUS ruling essentially IS a possessor of child porn, and would just happen to have some on their hard drive ready to post here at a moment's notice. For this alone, you should be ashamed of yourself.
4) You completely, intentionally ignore the fact that this was bad law, and went straight for the emotion-based "it's FOR THE CHILDREN" argument, just like a liberal would. Again, you should be ashamed, and we all see through your baseless, sick accusations.
The irony is that in their zeal to distinguish between virtual and real child pornography, the privacy rights of American citizens will suffer tremendously. The 'freedom' for perverts to fantasize about naked children will come at the expense of what little true freedom the rest of us have left.
It's called a figure of speech. Learn it; deal with it.
It’s called a backpedal.
Look at your feet go!
For me, at least, the problem is that by depicting it as kids having sex, it is kiddie porn, regardless of the age of those taking part. The intent, and the perception, is what matters.
The legalities and biological ages of the participants are secondary.
I think what we have here is a very good example of the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. The letter of the law can mean a variety of things, depending on the moral outlook of the people interpreting it.
Images of children having sex will now be widely, legally available, rationalized because "we aren't hurting any real children." And we will become used to seeing images of children being violated and it will seem, after several years, very normal. I don't want to know where it goes from there.
And what about the parents who have been tried and convicted of child porn under this law for taking pictures of their young children in the bathtub?
I dont know if you have any children, but if you do I am willing to bet you have such pictures and/or others that would be considered child porn under this law.
The court was right.
The law was poorly written. Fight for a new, more specific and clearly defined law.
Shall we prosecute PAX for showing "Diagnosis Murder"? Shall we ban all the Perry Mason books? These have all been suggested by some political gropus.
That determination is above my pay grade, but yanking it to CyberCindy KiddiePack 7.0 is clearly well over that line.
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.