The superior morality of early times.
Posted on 04/17/2002 8:45:48 AM PDT by KMC1
Be afraid, be very very afraid. Last night on Fox News Channel on Brit Hume's Special Report, Brian Wilson reported on the comparison between the new TV show that mimics the Supreme Court and the actual Supreme Court as they both ruled on cases dealing with "virtual child pornography". The TV version voted 7 to 2 in the same direction that the actual Supreme Court voted (6 to 3). It would have been 7 to 2 in the actual had Sandra Day O'Connor taken a little more of her medication that morning.
In Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition (a pornography trade, lobbying, and activist group), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that images can show children having sex, children can be shown in nude or erotic poses, children can perform sexual acts, children can be shown having sex with adults, children can be shown having sex with their own or opposite gender. The only catch - as long as they are not actual children being shown. Sound Confusing? Well it is.
Yesterday's ruling basically opens the way up to allowing pedophilia, child porn, and child molestation to be a major theme of everything from movies to printed materials - as long as they can prove that, the children depicted aren't actually children.
Getting the Court to rule this way obviously thrilled the ACLU and other pro-porn groups across our nation. It obviously deeply cut the groups that are trying to stop one of our nation's most cruel vices from spreading. So what should we expect? More of the same from as best I can see it.
With the publication of the University of Minnesota Press book released three weeks ago promoting the idea that sex between children and adults is just neato keen, and now being followed up with the ruling from this court that children can be made legitimate sexual objects on screen, parents - be afraid, be very very afraid.
Load the shotguns, carry your concealed weapons and suspect every creep that talks to your kids in the grocery store. At the rate the U.S. is going you might just have to shoot someone to literally save the innocence of your own child.
Harsh rhetoric - hardly. Why is the pope this week bringing all the bishops from around the world to meet to discuss the issue of homosexual pedophilia (and a few isolated cases of heterosexual too) amongst the servants of the church? Why is the North American Man Boy Love Association still in business and doing better than ever before? What is the great defense as to why we should not allow children to be sexualized on film - even if adults are playing them or a computer generated them?
(Too be read with a whiny little voice while holding one's nose) "Because we might not get to see films like Traffic or American Beauty." I didn't see Traffic though I am aware that it was nominated for Best Picture the year it came out. But I did see American Beauty which was deemed 'Best Picture'. This little political perverted statement - made through the eyes of a Pretendlander as director - wished to paint the middle class conservative family in America as nothing more than twice adulterating, homophobic, pedophilic, drug addicted, twisted rot. The director's anger against the "right wing" was focused into an attempt to say, "this is how conservative middle class America REALLY lives". Pretendland loved it - that's way they rushed it to the Academy to be deemed "the best of the year". But church going America for the most part yawned as it came and went - it didn't represent most American families - and we knew it.
Pretendland has evidently wielded its logic to the halls of the Supreme Court. But what it has done in the meantime is make every child in America - more vulnerable to the stalking of men who wish to prey on little boys and girls.
I'm sorry Mr. & Ms. Justices of the Supreme Court - but you struck out on this one. Your reasoning was lame. Your decision was even worse.
Maybe you will wear it as a badge of honor that you made child porn the new "fetish du jour", but please take note, you weakened Americans today.
Thank goodness there is that 2nd Amendment! It's there just in case we need to protect ourselves day to day. You may be sitting there saying, "C'mon what's with all the 'protectionism'?" If that's you, well, never mind you won't ever get it anyway. For the rest of you, lock and load, and be very afraid, be very very afraid!
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?
This word does not apply to Kevie, just as the word "honor" does not apply to Clowntoon.
Perhaps you're not as important as you apparently think and no one wants to waste valuable seconds by crafting a response...
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.
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.
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.
The superior morality of early times.
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?
"summarazie" = summarize
Sorry good old boy, but that one doesn't work.
Exactly - 100% correct. This is exactly what Justice Thomas was referring to by discussing the future possibility of affirmative defenses.
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.
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.
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.
I can. In fact, I did. Please see #88.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.