The Pro Porn Court?

WYLL.com, NEWSMAX.com, RFMNews.com, FederalObserver.com ^ | 4.17.2002 | Kevin McCullough

[tdadams]

It is now left to police departments to prove that the porn they found on someone's computer is a picture of a real child. That is a virtually impossible task...All the suspect must do now is claim that he created the image on a computer.

Do you make a habit of speaking before you've read the relevant material, or have you read it and make this claim despite the Supreme Court's addressing this concern and dismissing it as illegitimate?

[steve-b]

And frankly, it scares me that you think I should be.

This word does not apply to Kevie, just as the word "honor" does not apply to Clowntoon.

[gdani]

I have yet to have a libertarian hedonist explain step by step why the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was wrong in 1815, and the Pedophiles on the Supreme Court in 2002 were right today

Perhaps you're not as important as you apparently think and no one wants to waste valuable seconds by crafting a response...

[weikel]

In fact after this ruling I am more hopeful about the supreme court striking down that law.

[SunStar]

I didn't make any accusations. What I did do was ask follow-up questions to your argument.

[Lurking Libertarian]

This is bodes ill for America's future. The highest court in the land made it virtually impossible to prosecute ANY child porn. It is now left to police departments to prove that the porn they found on someone's computer is a picture of a real child. That is a virtually impossible task. Yesterday it became legal to own, share, and create child porn (because no one will ever be able to prove it wasn't done digitally - and they'll soon stop trying).

Did you read the Court's decision? Both the majority opinion and Justice Thomas's concurrence specifically address this issue. The Court relied on the fact that, under today's technology, it is possible to tell a real from a virtual image, and also said that, if it ever becomes technologically impossible to tell the difference, Congress could constitutionally put the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that a real-looking image was in fact a virtual one.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I doubt that anyone one of us who is opposed to this decision, is against Guns, but the libertarians want to make it seem that way.

No, we are trying to point out that the precedent you want the courts to set could be used to suppress guns, or "hate speech" against gays, or amny other things the Constitution should protect.

[general_re]

The judges in the case you quote from, Commonwealth v. Sharpless, were not wrong by modern standards in one sense, but in another sense, they were. If you knew the background of the case, you'd know that.

Good old Jesse Sharpless was, in 1815, arrested and charged with obscenity after it came to light that he had been charging some of his neighbors for the privilege of viewing his prized possession, an oil painting depicting a man and woman engaged in intercourse. Despite there being no Pennsylvania statute against obscenity, the court found that obscenity was a common-law offense, and his conviction was upheld upon review.

Of course, nowadays, just as back then, obscenity is still a recognized exception to First Amendment free specch guarantees. Just as in 1815, obscenity is still not protected speech. So as far as that's concerned, you're wrong about the disagreement between that court and modern courts.

Secondly, 1815 was long before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. I know discussion of the validity of the 14'th is a popular topic around here, but let me simply summarazie by saying that, in 1815, there was little reason to think that the First Amendment applied (or even should apply) to state actors, rather than federal ones. Nowadays, of course, the answer to to that question is completely the opposite. The difference between then and now is that now, the Bill of Rights applies to the states per the 14'th Amendment, but back then, it didn't. QED.

[steve-b]

why were we so wrong at the founding of our nation (see the above decision) and okay now?

The superior morality of early times.

[FF578]

Again another ad hominem attack by a hedonist. The fact is The time our forefathers first landed here in the 1600's until the 1960's our nation did not tolerate immoral behavior that destroys society.

Not wanting to respond only shows that deep inside you know our founders were right.

Our Founders would be rolling in the grave right now if they thought for one second this was going on today.

Once again, why can't you explain why the reasoning in the 1815 decision was wrong, and the 2002 Decision was right?

[general_re]

That's an interesting typo. Most of my typos are not this interesting. ;)

"summarazie" = summarize

[FF578]

The good old slave strawman.

Sorry good old boy, but that one doesn't work.

[weikel]

So Clarence THomas is a pedophile right.... here is why the Supreme Court is right today two words "Fourteenth Amendment"( you'll probably break into some neonconfederate BS about how the 14th was never enacted).

[general_re]

The Court relied on the fact that, under today's technology, it is possible to tell a real from a virtual image, and also said that, if it ever becomes technologically impossible to tell the difference, Congress could constitutionally put the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that a real-looking image was in fact a virtual one.

Exactly - 100% correct. This is exactly what Justice Thomas was referring to by discussing the future possibility of affirmative defenses.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Once again, why can't you explain why the reasoning in the 1815 decision was wrong, and the 2002 Decision was right?

Because, under the reasoning of the 1815 decision, the State of California could ban the Bible on the ground that it would spread hatred of homosexuals.

[UnsinkableMollyBrown]

Did you read the Court's decision? Both the majority opinion and Justice Thomas's concurrence specifically address this issue. The Court relied on the fact that, under today's technology, it is possible to tell a real from a virtual image,

That is not true. Using a variety of software that is currently available, one can make a lifelike image purely from imagination. One would be hard pressed to tell a real photo from a digital creation.

and also said that, if it ever becomes technologically impossible to tell the difference, Congress could constitutionally put the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that a real-looking image was in fact a virtual one.

But right now the burden of proof is on the police and prosecuting attorneys. Bad idea. And would you really trust our congressional leaders to shift the burden back where it belongs, i.e. the perverts have to prove their images were created on the computer?

I will be back later to pick up my flames.

[weikel]

No Ashcroft should focus on terrorist and other real criminals and stop wasting his time on this porn nonsense there are still far too many "peaceful Muslims" running around in this Country IMHO.

[Valpal1]

Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...

Bump to that. It is ridiculous that pornography ("sexual" speech?) was ever given equal status to political speech.

Congress should redefine by statute that pornography, esp. child porn in any medium, is a non-political, non protected product used for sexual expression/entertainment and regulate and tax the hell out of adult porn and ban all child porn completely.

It is not speech, it's a product, commercially produced for profit, or self produced for personal consumption, or sharing with "friends" (barf!).

That this has to argued in our culture is pathetic.

[kellynla]

Pornography harms all. It denigrates the human race. Period. If you want to blather about your "right" to look at dirty pictures go right ahead just don't try to "justify" it with me or your Maker because it will fall on deaf ears.

[general_re]

...why can't you explain why the reasoning in the 1815 decision was wrong...

I can. In fact, I did. Please see #88.