Posted on 04/24/2002 3:56:03 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Whenever a Supreme Court opinion is bristling with references to Renaissance paintings, classical mythology, and "art and literature throughout the ages," you know the court is about to invoke the First Amendment to protect "Bisexual Schoolgirls' Porn Pictures."
Writing for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy struck down a perfectly sensible federal child porn law last week. Though you might think the attorney general was preparing to rip "War and Peace" off the shelves, the law simply extended the reach of the federal child pornography laws to computer-generated "virtual" images of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Without this law, it will be impossible, in practice, to prosecute any child pornography cases.
In order to prohibit, say, "Youngest Teen Sluts in the World!" while leaving the Federalist Papers unmolested, the law carefully defined "sexually explicit" conduct as: "actual or simulated ... sexual intercourse ... bestiality ... masturbation ... sadistic or masochistic abuse ... or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."
In response to this law, Justice Kennedy expounded on William Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" – "the most famous pair of teen-age lovers." He continued: "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and ... speech is the beginning of thought."
Oh, cut it out.
The last smut prosecutions for works with any redeeming value whatsoever took place almost four decades ago. Since then, pornographers have been running amok, producing the most degrading pornography imaginable – and then running to the Supreme Court to whine about threats to Shakespeare and "Lady Chatterley's Lover."
Some of the more respectable titles taken off the Internet include: "Preteen Pedophilia XXX," "Kiddie Pix," "Mary's Pictures of Young Nude Girls," "Lolita Angels," "Preteen Nudist Camp," "Naked Little School Girls," "Kiddie Porn Lolitas," "Rape Lolita," "Preteen Incest Rape."
Remember: I'm not the one who says "Preteen Sluts" is protected by the Constitution. Pornography defenders always insist on describing this particular constitutional right in vague euphemisms, such as "material dealing frankly with sex" and "sexually themed material." If I have to endure Justice Kennedy's pompous platitudes when we're talking about "Lolita Angels," then I'm not politely avoiding the topic.
The nation is swimming in pornography. You can't turn on TV without seeing simulated sex scenes. And Kennedy is worried that a law banning computer-generated photos of children engaging in sexually explicit acts will put Shakespeare at risk?
If judges pretended to be this confused when interpreting other laws, there could be no laws about anything. Indeed, Depends undergarments would be a necessity on the high court, as justices struggled with whether that feeling in their bellies meant they had to go to the bathroom or needed to burp. Is it "Othello" or is it "Kiddie Pix"?
In addition to Shakespeare, Kennedy claims that if Congress were permitted to outlaw virtual images of children in explicit sex scenes, movies like "Traffic" and "American Beauty" might be made differently. "[L]egitimate movie producers," Kennedy anxiously warns, might not "risk distributing images in or near the uncertain reach of this law."
Justice William Rehnquist points out in his dissent that both "American Beauty" and "Traffic" were made (and given awards) while this precise child porno law was on the books. Not only that, but during that time, four of five federal appeals courts were upholding the law. As Rehnquist says: "The chill felt by the court ... has apparently never been felt by those who actually make movies."
Moreover, the actress who played a teen-age girl in the crucially important simulated sex scene in "Traffic" was not, in fact, a minor. (Why does no one ever say, "'Casablanca' was a good movie – but what it really needed was simulated sex scenes with kids"?) Even high-priced lawyers for the porno industry couldn't come up with more than one "legitimate" Hollywood movie that might possibly – theoretically – fall under the virtual child porn law.
Here is a description, courtesy of an Internet rating service, of just some of the sex scenes from "American Beauty": "a couple has sex with thrusting, her legs up in the air ... a man is seen from behind masturbating in the shower ... a man masturbates next to his sleeping wife in bed ... a girl stands in front of boy, then takes her bra off and we see her breasts ... a man thinks a male couple is performing fellatio (they are not) ... a father kisses his daughter's teen-age friend, caresses her clothed breasts and pulls off her jeans until she's down to her underwear, and opens her shirt, exposing her bare breasts ... a man has several daydreams of a girl in a bathtub with rose petals covering her; he reaches his hand under the water at her crotch level as she puts her head back and moans."
So Congress can't ban virtual kiddie porn because the law might make producers think twice before making movies with scenes like that? This is the doomsday scenario? A little chilling might lead to "virtual" watchable movies.
By the way, this "virtual kiddie porn" better be available to all on your local public library's computers or some people will get very mad and sue.
This country is shot to Hell, and like the proverbial fish, it is rotting from the head down.
The important part of the ruling was declaring virtual kiddie porn protected under the first amendment.
And, please, enough with the cartoon strawmen. Computer graphics are capapble of infinitely more than cartoons.
SCOTUS has no right telling my town that we must allow access to porn in our libraries which the ACLU has argued for successfully. Next, we will be required to allow access to virtual kiddie porn because after all, who is harmed?
This ruling also has nothing to do with existing state obscenity laws. What was obscene in your state last week is still obscene today. It also had nothing whatsoever to do with mandating that your local library allow access to porn over their computer systems. You're making apples and oranges arguments.
And all the time the bounds of "expressive" free speech have been expanded far beyond anything intended in the First Amendment, political speech has been more and more regulated. This kind of discredits the argument that if we don't protect virtual child porn, the next thing will be political speech. The fact is that as the protection of pornography has increased, the protection of political speech has decreased.
I posted the following article a long time ago; since it has one response, maybe it would be all right to draw attention to it again:
Freedom of Speech: Is America at High Tide... or Low?
Madison's summary of what the 1st Amendment accomplishes, from the Congressional debates on the Bill of Rights:
The right of freedom of speech is secured; the liberty of the press is expressly declared to be beyond the reach of this Government; the people may therefore publicly address their representatives, may privately advise them, or declare their sentiment by petition to the whole body; in all these ways they may communicate their will.
From James Kent's Commentaries on American Law:
The liberal communication of sentiment, and entire freedom of discussion, in respect to the character and conduct of public men, and of candidates for public favour, is deemed essential to the judicious exercise of the right of suffrage, and of that control over their rulers, which resides in the free people of these United States. It has, accordingly, become a constitutional principle in this country, that "every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments, on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and that no law can rightfully be passed to restrain or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press."From Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:
No one can doubt the importance, in a free government, of a right to canvass the acts of public men, and the tendency of public measures, to censure boldly the conduct of rulers, and to scrutinize closely the policy, and plans of the government. This is the great security of a free government. If we would preserve it, public opinion must be enlightened; political vigilance must be inculcated; free, but not licentious, discussion must be encouraged. But the exercise of a right is essentially different from an abuse of it. The one is no legitimate inference from the other. Common sense here promulgates the broad doctrine, sic utere tuo, ut non alienum laedas; so exercise your own freedom, as not to infringe the rights of others, or the public peace and safety.All citations are from The Founder's Constitution
So what you are saying is there is NO such thing as obscenity or vulgarity; voyeurism of a sex-murder is perfectly ok as long as the viewer has not participated; And let those 10 years olds help themselves to images of Hustler magazine...
The ghost of Caligula lives...
No, the image you described was not illegal under "that" law, and you are not addressing what the ruling and law were about.
The Statute criminalized depictions of children engaging in sexually explicit conduct defined as: actual or simulated sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, and lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area. [18U.S.C. 2256(2)]
Further, child pornography defined under CPPA as: "any visual depiction including photographs, film, video, picture, or computer or computer generated image or picture, whether made by or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means of sexually explicit conduct where visual depiction is, or appears to be a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. [18U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B)]
Ann Coulter is right on the money.
Section 2256(8)(C) prohibits a more common and lower tech means of creating virtual images, known as computer morphing. Rather than creating original images, pornographers can alter innocent pictures of real children so that the children appear to be engaged in sexual activity. Although morphed images may fall within the definition of virtual child pornography, they implicate the interests of real children and are in that sense closer to the images in Ferber. Respondents do not challenge this provision, and we do not consider it.
Respondents do challenge 2256(8)(D). Like the text of the appears to be provision, the sweep of this provision is quite broad. Section 2256(8)(D) defines child pornography to include any sexually explicit image that was advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. One Committee Report identified the provision as directed at sexually explicit images pandered as child pornography. See S.Rep. No. 104358, p.22 (1996) (This provision prevents child pornographers and pedophiles from exploiting prurient interests in child sexuality and sexual activity through the production or distribution of pornographic material which is intentionally pandered as child pornography). The statute is not so limited in its reach, however, as it punishes even those possessors who took no part in pandering. Once a work has been described as child pornography, the taint remains on the speech in the hands of subsequent possessors, making possession unlawful even though the content otherwise would not be objectionable.
Fearing that the CPPA threatened the activities of its members, respondent Free Speech Coalition and others challenged the statute in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Coalition, a California trade association for the adult-entertainment industry, alleged that its members did not use minors in their sexually explicit works, but they believed some of these materials might fall within the CPPAs expanded definition of child pornography. The other respondents are Bold Type, Inc., the publisher of a book advocating the nudist lifestyle; Jim Gingerich, a painter of nudes; and Ron Raffaelli, a photographer specializing in erotic images. Respondents alleged that the appears to be and conveys the impression provisions are overbroad and vague, chilling them from producing works protected by the First Amendment. The District Court disagreed and granted summary judgment to the Government. The court dismissed the overbreadth claim because it was highly unlikely that any adaptations of sexual works like Romeo and Juliet, will be treated as criminal contraband. App. to Pet. for Cert. 62a63a.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. See 198 F.3d 1083 (1999). The court reasoned that the Government could not prohibit speech because of its tendency to persuade viewers to commit illegal acts. The court held the CPPA to be substantially overbroad because it bans materials that are neither obscene nor produced by the exploitation of real children as in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). Judge Ferguson dissented on the ground that virtual images, like obscenity and real child pornography, should be treated as a category of speech unprotected by the First Amendment. 198 F.3d, at 1097. The Court of Appeals voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, over the dissent of three judges. See 220 F.3d 1113 (2000).
While the Ninth Circuit found the CPPA invalid on its face, four other Courts of Appeals have sustained it. See United States v. Fox, 248 F. 3d 394 (CA5 2001); United States v. Mento, 231 F. 3d 912 (CA4 2000); United States v. Acheson, 195 F. 3d 645 (CA11 1999); United States v. Hilton, 167 F. 3d 61 (CA1), cert. denied, 528 U. S. 844 (1999). We granted certiorari. 531 U.S. 1124 (2001).
No, the real question is: WHEN WILL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LIVE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE US CONSTITUTION?
Thats not going to happen unless people protest.
We are too lazy to protest.
So, we're headed for authoritarianism.
No, obscenity and vulgarity does exist. but it's not unlawful to possess. STANLEY v. GEORGIA
"Appellant raises several challenges to the validity of his conviction. 2 We find it necessary to consider only one. Appellant argues here, and argued below, that the Georgia obscenity statute, insofar as it punishes mere private possession of obscene matter, violates the First Amendment, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons set forth below, we agree that the mere private possession of obscene matter cannot constitutionally be made a crime."
" These are the rights that appellant is asserting in the case before us. He is asserting the right to read or observe what he pleases - the right to satisfy his intellectual and emotional needs in the privacy of his own home. He is asserting the right to be free from state inquiry into the contents of his library. Georgia contends that appellant does not have these rights, that there are certain types of materials that the individual may not read or even possess. Georgia justifies this assertion by arguing that the films in the present case are obscene. But we think that mere categorization of these films as "obscene" is insufficient justification for such a drastic invasion of personal liberties guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."
" And yet, in the face of these traditional notions of individual liberty, Georgia asserts the right to protect the individual's mind from the effects of obscenity. We are not certain that this argument amounts to anything more than the assertion that the State has the right to control the moral content of a person's thoughts."
" Finally, we are faced with the argument that prohibition of possession of obscene materials is a necessary incident to statutory schemes prohibiting distribution. That argument is based on alleged difficulties of proving an intent to distribute or in producing evidence of actual distribution. We are not convinced that such difficulties [394 U.S. 557, 568] exist, but even if they did we do not think that they would justify infringement of the individual's right to read or observe what he pleases. Because that right is so fundamental to our scheme of individual liberty, its restriction may not be justified by the need to ease the administration of otherwise valid criminal laws. See Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959)."
"We hold that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit making mere private possession of obscene material a crime. 11 Roth and the cases following that decision are not impaired by today's holding. As we have said, the States retain broad power to regulate obscenity; that power simply does not extend to mere possession by the individual in the privacy of his own home. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered."
” The purpose of child pornography laws is to protect children from exploitation by demented adults”
Good try, but no cigar. The purpose of pornography laws in general was more than the protection of the people being photographed from exploitation. The purpose was primarily to protect the general population from the degradation of what I call “public morality.” Just as anti pollution laws are primarily designed to protect the physical environment so that people will not be exposed to noxious waste products, pornography laws were intended to protect the mental (spiritual?) environment from the noxious effects it would have on both children and adults.
Of course, even in the bygone days before the Supremes struck down pornography prohibitions, it was available, but it was not available in racks at the check-out counter of the local Kroger. Just as there will always be physical polluters, there will always be pornographers. But society was healthier when it had a defense against the wholesale dumping of spiritual waste.
This is the basis of their problems. They have it totally backwards. Thought is the beginning of speech--not the other way around.
What idiots.
Hardly, you continually construct strawmen. We have the cartoon strawman, the 17 year olds necking in the car strawman, the jwalsh07 doesn't know apples from oranges strawman.
It gets tiresome. I'm clear on where I stand. SCOTUS created a first amendment right to virtual kiddie porn out of thin air in another power grab from the states.
You seemingly support that because the ruling aligns with your ideology, I don't because it is another blatant power grab and because I can distinguish between the freedom of speech as an unalienable right and perversion for perversions sake.
Thats it, in a nutshell.
Thanks for buttressing my side with substantive and cogent arguments.
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.