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."

[jlogajan]

Let us assume that porn of any sort can increase aggressive acts against others. Doesn't the smoking and drinking analogy apply? Smoking and drinking is largely for personal pleasure, yet they are by far the largest killers of innocent bystanders. If you were serious about reducing societal costs, banning smoking and drinking would be first on your list.

[Timesink]

DISCLAIMER: I have never been in possesion of, or desired to be in possession of, nor seen, child pron. I still don't, and I will never attempt to be in possession of or see child porn. But still, how does the consumer (a.k.a. disgusting pervert) tell the difference?

Well, that's half the point of the SCOTUS ruling: It doesn't matter. The point of child porn laws isn't to prevent sickos from getting off on certain kinds of pictures, it's to prevent innocent children from being used sexually in order to create the pictures. If the entire graphic is fake, no child is harmed, thus there's no point in it being illegal.

(This does lead to another question, of course: Would the open availability of computer-generated child porn be more likely to allow said sickos to get their kicks without resorting to making moves on actual children, or would it just make them even MORE likely to go after real children? I personally believe the former is true, for the same reason millions of men read Playboy and Penthouse without turning into rapists. But I'm not aware of any legitimate studies on the issue.)

[BikerNYC]

That determination is above my pay grade, but yanking it to CyberCindy KiddiePack 7.0 is clearly well over that line.

I see you are one of those "I know it when I see it" types, which is fine, but does not help with the quantifiable issue. It just makes it a matter of opinion, which is also fine.

[steve-b]

And your objection to socialism or communism would be what then?

What makes you think he has any?

[dead]

He understands, and is able to use the English language to communicate his beliefs effectively.

Learn from him.

[steve-b]

You know in your heart

I think with my head. You and other leftists are welcome to use your heart, or some other organ, instead.

[Egg]

Stop with the red herring--the decision was that "the First Amendment protects pornography or other sexual images that only appear to depict real children engaged in sex." The fact that sexually explicit material is given the green light supercedes how the law may have been mis-applied to parents taking pictures of their kids in tubs. Now it's okay to have even simulated sex occurring between two kids, as long as there's a few airbrushed pixels somewhere. You're championing a sick cause...

[Timesink]

Pornography doesn't lessen desire -- know any men who say "well, I have Playboy and my 900 number, that's enough, I really don't want sex with a woman"?

How many men turn into rapists after reading Playboy and listening to 900 numbers? How many men that WOULD have turned into rapists might end up havings their needs just satiated enough via Playboy and 900 numbers to keep from going the rapist route?

[anton]

I'm confused. The image in the movie, Traffic, was simulated sex between a real live adult heroin dealer and a real live 16 year old. How is this "virtual sex?" I thought "virtual sex" was the computer generated animation variety.

[Lazamataz]

I see you are one of those "I know it when I see it" types

Wow! I have never been compared to a Supreme Court Justice before! Thanks!

[Timesink]

Now it's okay to have even simulated sex occurring between two kids, as long as there's a few airbrushed pixels somewhere.

Are you attempting to claim that an actual photo of two actual, existing children engaged in sexual activity is now legal, as long as someone uses Photoshop to change the color of the pillows on the bed first before posting it online somwhere? Because if you are making such a claim, you're wrong.

[AmericanInTokyo]

I admire your conviction.

I dont admire child pornography.

But then, that's just me....:-)

[Timesink]

I'm confused. The image in the movie, Traffic, was simulated sex between a real live adult heroin dealer and a real live 16 year old. How is this "virtual sex?" I thought "virtual sex" was the computer generated animation variety.

Didn't they use an over-18 body double for that sex scene?

[Timesink]

I dont admire child pornography.

Neither do I.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The law was poorly written. Fight for a new, more specific and clearly defined law.

The regular obscenity laws are still on the books. Any pornography-- written words, photos, pixels, drawings-- can still be prosecuted, if the prosecution can meet the burden of proving all the elements of that statute (the material is offensive to contemporary community standards; it lacks serious artistic or scientific value; etc.)

The Child Pornography Act covers a lot of material that is not legally "obscene," as long as it depicts children under 18 having sex. The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality on the ground that a broader ban was necessary to protect children from harm. That necessarily implies that the broader law shouldn't apply if no actual children are harmed.

[Askel5]

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

You folks only too eager to give your "Adult Consent" are the stuff of Uncle Sam's wet dreams.

EYELESS IN GAZA: SEXUAL LIBERATION AS POLITICAL CONTROL

[Egg]

Stop focusing on the sarcasm and address the issue: Do you believe there is any legal right for people to view (fictitional) images of children engaged in sex?

Everyone here should just stop with the insults and answer that question. Then we'll know on which side of the fence each stands.

[gdani]

I'm confused. The image in the movie, Traffic, was simulated sex between a real live adult heroin dealer and a real live 16 year old. How is this "virtual sex?" I thought "virtual sex" was the computer generated animation variety

The statute covered more than "virtual sex"

It read "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"

[mconder]

The fact is free speech is not a right to be regulated by government becasue it wasn't granted by government.

See The Declaration of Independence..."endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

Definition for unalienable is "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away;"

This means that all speach is protected unless it infringes upon the unalienable rights of another, such as presents an imminent threat to the life of another.

All this said, there is seemingly a social reality, that is a loss of freedom realized when public virtue is lost. I would suggest that the best way to fight for liberty is to restore this public virtue.

[BikerNYC]

Yes, it is a famous, or rather imfamous, quote, and an amazing point on which to hang a judicial opinion (not that most of them are any better).