Well, obviously it's creepy to think of anyone getting their kicks off fake child porn too, even if it doesn't involve an actual child. I think that's what you're feeling.
It's a victory for the sickos and weirdos, but it's still the right decision, which is confusing.
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.
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.
This is the problem. Write a good law and this won't happen. The people who write these laws leave them intentionally vauge so they can intrpret them anyway they want time goes by.
Of course there is. Pornography of any type is immoral. But even when we know something is immoral, it does not necessarily follow that the Government has any business stepping in to regulate it. This was a good ruling.
Well, yeah, drawing sexually explicit pictures of kids is well... sick, depraved, gross, disgusting, vile, vulgar and icky. Pretty creepy too. Anyone who would do that definately bears close scrutiny in my opinion.
You better not, lest you spend 20 years in prison.
You know it is morally wrong, as most of us do. But that does not necessarily make it legally wrong. The SC made the right decision, IMO.
But didn't one of the founders say something about "self-government will not work without self-discipline?" Or maybe it was Paul Harvey.
Carolyn
This from Reuters:
Kennedy wrote for the court majority that the law was too broad and violated the First Amendment by prohibiting speech despite serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. He said themes of teen-age sexual activity and the sexual abuse of children have inspired countless literary works. He said William Shakespeare in "Romeo and Juliet" created the most famous pair of teen-age lovers, one of whom was just 13.
While Shakespeare may not have included sexually explicit scenes for the Elizabethan audience, modern movie directors may want to show that the couple consummated their relationship, he said.
Kennedy said a number of acclaimed movies, filmed without any child actors, explore themes that fall within the wide sweep of the law's prohibitions.
CITES MOVIES 'TRAFFIC,' 'AMERICAN BEAUTY'
He cited the award-wining movies, "Traffic," which has the high school daughter of the nation's drug czar trading sex for drugs, and "American Beauty," with scenes of sexual relations between a teen-age girl and her boyfriend and a teen-age girl and a middle-aged man.
The so-called "virtual" child pornography law, adopted by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, made it a crime to distribute or possess the pictures, even if the images did not involve real children.
-----end quote----
Looks like we can score one for Clinton. Amazingly, in the sex department.
What's wrong is that this virtual kiddie porn exists at all, which prompted congress to pass a law, which prompted the court to rule upon it.
Even had the court upheld the law, that would not, alas, have fixed the underlying cultural illness.
The child pornography collections of pedophiles are a stimulus to desire, and to action.
Only in the modern era have we required injury to an actual child as the necessary element of the crime.
Obscene material is that which is unacceptable to "community standards", and that which tends to excite lust in the viewer, and to be degrading.
Virtual child pornography meets all of these tests.
I concur, and my reasoning is one and the same used against adult in pornography as even "simulated" child porn still hurts children everywhere. And since children must be protected from perverts, even "fake kiddie porn" should be illegal.
You ought to be.
The floodgates of kiddie porn have been opened wide.
'Course the liberfoolians will simply cheer, ride the wave of filth, lift their eyes piously to the sky, and declare they are personally opposed to kiddie porn.
Yeah, what a wonderful, wonderful world.
If virtual child pornography is legal then: is it o.k. to show it to children? will we someday see it on t.v as we do adult porn now? can your child's image be made into a virtual porn star?
This decision makes me physically sick to my stomach. Much as clinton's re-election did, or o.j. acquital.