Replies

Why was a 'mainstream' pornographic lobbying group the plaintiff in this case? Could it be that the legit adult sites want to start adding child porn (virtual, as the case may be) to its sites? If you're going to invoke the slippery slope fallacy, wouldn't this be a 'mainstreaming' of kiddy porn? If you don't believe it, look at how porn has changed in the last thirty years: while teenagers may have had access to the relatively mild images of 'Playboy' and 'Penthouse' in the 1970s, the mainstream keeps getting more and more extreme to attract an increasingly jaded audience: look at the success of Max Hardcore and Extreme Productions. In 1972, would anybody have believed that these creeps would have been allowed to push the crap they're making? What makes kiddy porn any different? As much as I love liberty and the First Amendment, this Supreme Court decision frightens me. "I've seen the future, baby--it is murder." (Leonard Cohen)

Why was a 'mainstream' pornographic lobbying group the plaintiff in this case? Could it be that the legit adult sites want to start adding child porn (virtual, as the case may be) to its sites?

Not having read the briefs of both sides, nor being able to peer into their hearts, I cannot authoritatively answer this question. However, the court's decision seems to indicate that their stated objection was that it would have the effect of criminalizing material that was currently permissible, and that there was no underlying crime within "virtual" porn, as the court's previous rulings on child pornography had required.

It may be possible that they wish to add such "virtual" child pornography to their stock-in-trade. However, neither of us know that to be the case, and it would be imprudent to behave as though we knew something we do not yet know.

If you're going to invoke the slippery slope fallacy, wouldn't this be a 'mainstreaming' of kiddy porn?

Possibly. However, the underlying rationale for criminalizing child pornography has always been that such pornography is A) evidence of a real crime, involving harm to real children, and; B) the dissemination of child pornography leads to a demand for, and the production of, more child pornography, and hence more harm to children. "Virtual" child pornography fails this test on both counts. The children depicted are not real, and hence no real children are harmed in the production or distribution of such material.

Fair enough, yes? Now, I'll ask you to return the favor - would you address my original question, and tell me what you believe to be the potential negative consequences and implications, if any, had the court ruled to uphold this law?

I almost forgot - one more thing.

As much as I love liberty and the First Amendment, this Supreme Court decision frightens me.

It frightens me too. But animals are not capable of reason, and hence are ruled by their fears. I am not an animal, and neither are you. Let us stop and think about this, and reason together as men, rather than behaving as unthinking animals...