Parental advisory: This column discusses 'speech' (Ann Coulter) TRIPLE XXX

worldnetdaily ^ | 4/24/2002 | Ann Coulter

[TLBSHOW]

Parental advisory: This column discusses 'speech'

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.

[Rule of Law]

Exactly! Liberals and Conservatives are both the same when it comes to personal freedoms and the size of government - it's just that their "pet" projects differ.

Bingo. Give the man a cigar.

[max61]

Nevermind, I don't feel like going around the circular logic of folks who are so open-minded their brains are falling out.

This is due to your lack of brains, or your inability to engage it to function. Obviously you cannot discern the difference between virtual and actual. When you are capable of this distinction, you may understand, but that probability is low.

---max

[Rule of Law]

I've long contended that this is the difference between liberals and consrevatives: Liberals like their big government slathered on from left to right while conservatives prefer it slathered on from right to left.

And the freedom-loving Americans get caught in the middle.

[general_re]

Be that as it may, the 1st Amendment does not legitimately apply to the states.

Does the 2'nd? Which of the first ten amendments legitimately applies to the states, if any?

[steve-b]

1st Amendment does not legitimately apply to the states

***BBBBZZZZTTTT!!!***

The need for a more solid foundation for the protection of freedmen as well as white citizens was recognized, and the result was a significant new proposal--the Fourteenth Amendment. A chief exponent of the amendment, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (R., Mich.), referred to "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; . . . the right to keep and bear arms. . . ."[35] Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary because presently these rights were not guaranteed against state legislation. "The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

[steve-b]

As noted in my previous message, application of the first eight amendments (the ones listing specific rights) to the states was the specific intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[MassExodus]

Nonsense. This case was about computer created images, not actual live children.

Send me a photo of yourself and watch what I, ( Image Editor by profession ) can do with it.

It would look like a computer "rendered" image and be entirley legal, you however, could be very very horrified.

; c )

[Bagehot]

"Underestimating the power of free speech is a grave miscalculation".p Absoultely true, I think Anne Coulter, with whom I am usually in 100% agreement, has got it wrong. I think this piece was really an excuse to grandstand and insert some pretty good laugh lines into her output.

She's wrong, Kennedy was right.

[Rule of Law]

Does the 2'nd? Which of the first ten amendments legitimately applies to the states, if any?

None. But most states have similar guarantees in their constitutions. Not all. For instance, California does not have protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

[ctdonath2]

Our Founding folk never thought we'd stoop to this kind of vomitous slime.

Nonsense. This slime has been part of society about as long as humans have existed. In fact, such imagery HAS been "virtual", in the form of paintings & drawings, for most of history. The ability to capture real images via photography is really a very recent development.

[anniegetyourgun]

I'm sorry if I posted to you earlier. Probably just my lack of brains. I can assure you, it won't happen again.

[anniegetyourgun]

Once again, child porn (real or created) is not speech anymore than you deciding to poop on the sidewalks and call it art.

[anniegetyourgun]

I'm well aware of what they struck down.

[general_re]

Then you must necessarily dispute the validity of the 14'th amendment, which was, as steve-b points out, clearly intended to bind states to the Bill of Rights. Why do you feel the 14'th amendment is invalid?

For instance, California does not have protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you feel this is a good thing? IOW, you must then argue that, although it would be wrong and unconstitutional for the federal government to confiscate all firearms from citizens, it is proper and just that the state of California does so. Why is it proper and just that rights guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution can be abrogated by the states at will?

What is the point of having a "right" to keep and bear arms if it can be revoked by the states? If such a thing is revocable, does it make sense to even call it a "right"?

[FreeTally]

I'm well aware of what they struck down.

No you're not. You keep talking about child porn when this decision has nothing to do with it.

[anniegetyourgun]

Yes, even graphically designed photos of an adult male sodomizing a 10 year old is not speech.

[anniegetyourgun]

But I understand your need to obsfucate.

[Rule of Law]

The need for a more solid foundation for the protection of freedmen as well as white citizens was recognized, and the result was a significant new proposal--the Fourteenth Amendment. A chief exponent of the amendment, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (R., Mich.), referred to "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; . . . the right to keep and bear arms. . . ."[35] Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary because presently these rights were not guaranteed against state legislation. "The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

The notion you advance is called substantive due process. It is just another way of allowing judges to use their opinions of what the law ought to be to throw out laws enacted by the people.

Senator Howard may have made such a statement, but the language that was to have made this happen was stricken from the Amendment before it passed. This shows that the 14th Amendment was not intended to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights.

[ctdonath2]

There is no question that the acts depicted, if actually performed, are heinous & immoral & illegal. Nobody here condones such actions. What SCOTUS observed, and which Ann misses, is the precident set by banning the depiction of illegal/immoral actions when the action did not occur in creating the depiction.

If you think SCOTUS was in error in striking down this law, then what if the law is changed ever-so-slightly to also ban "virtual murder"?

and what, then, prevents the prohibition of legitimate films that also depict "virtual murder"?

Some ideas are indeed dispicable. Society is right to shun depiction of such ideas. HOWEVER, there is no way to lawfully ban gratuitous depiction of evils and not wrongfully oppress practically identical legitimate depiction of evils. Sure, "Debbie Does Dallas" may seem unworthy of legal protection...but if lawfully suppressed, then how can Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus" not be suppressed as well? "Jason X" certainly is no legitimate contribution to society...but if banned, how could "The Patriot" be allowed?

[lelio]

If you approve, you approve of the power of an un-elected elite to reduce your power as a citizen.
That's an interesting point which was brought up on a recent PBS show about NAFTA: that Canada or Mexico can sue the US (or vice versa) to repeal laws in the US that prevent their products from coming in. Example of a US company taking over a Mexican waste dump but not wanting to play by the local rules.
However I believe that the right of citizens to look at images (digital pictures, drawings, etc) should trump any desire of the majority to make a more 'moral' society.