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.
... is a socialist mantra.
There is a big difference between "socially wrong" and constitutional and legal.
The simple fact is this was a bad law. It left wide open the definition of "child pornography" to basically be anything that anyone, anywhere thinks possibly that the subjects depicted might be under age and could be engaged in a sexually explicit act. That's a dangerous thing, how does this law react when the people involved are folks like Leonardo DeCaprio and Kate Moss (you know, people that puberty clearly skipped and they look 12 for most of their life).
Child pornography is illegal because children having sex is illegal. The porn rules as they stand are pretty easy: if the act is illegal pictures of the act are illegal. As soon as you open the door for how the pictures can be interpretted you're in a very dangerous land where people are going to jail because the judge is a sicko not because they are.
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.
Being immoral does not and should equate to being illegal. The decision was a legal one. It did not say there is nothing socially wrong with it. This is a critical distinction that everyone who argues for limited government needs to make.
There are those, unfortunately, at this forum, whose concepts of freedom are as shallow as a clam shell. They imagine that this is a telling blow against the power of the State. What is in fact the case is that the concept of sex with children has now been legitimized. Some folks, who imagine themselves to be conservatives, do not imagine this to be harmful, and again I must ask what is left for conservatives to conserve?
I don't think that's the issue here. It's more at whether government is the right tool to use against it. The history of government is that if you give them a stomper-outer, they don't put it back on the shelf when they're done stomping what you wanted stomped. Instead they form a Department of Stomping, and now there's another bunch of jack-booted thugs running around doing stuff you never intended.