And what the hell does that have to do with the possible existence of sunff films? What does that have to do with the definite existence of child pornography?
No, but it is hard to take seriously an apparent attack on the right to freedom of speech as explicitly laid out in the Bill of Rights, on the basis of harm you imagine is probably happening.
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.
This also applied to the argument here that virtual child porn should be banned because pedophiles show it to their potential victims. If, in fact, you can drum up scientific evidence that would pass muster in an objective courtroom review, that virtual porn is an epidemically virulent, potent, primary cause of children "giving in" to their pedophile predators, I'm ready to give it a hearing--until them, I'll continue to think of it as childish, unrealistic simple-minded argument garnered whole cloth from someone's overactive imagination and prudish lack of realistic understanding of how a pedophile and his victim could possibly relate to each other.
Oh, please. You almost sound a kiddy porn defender. Is that the impression you wish to give?
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?
The Free Speech Coalition was, the legal arm of the pornography industry. And it was because, among other things, there was no exemption for "artistic merit".
And don't you even realize what this means? How can a DA prosecute someone who only has to say his kiddy porn stash is not real? We all know what people can do with computers nowadays. In fact, defendants in the Operation: Candyman bust are already perched to do that very thing.
You see, it does not matter if the child pornography is real or manufactured, regardless of what SCOTUS said. Kiddy porn by any other name is STILL kiddy porn. But because of the actions of SCOTUS, this form of child porn has suddenly become legal, and the puveryors of this particular kind of filth have been given carte blanche.
As someone else said, when it becomes harder to prosecute child pornographers, this country is finished.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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"?
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?