Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Redcloak
In pointing out that the "children" protected by the statute are cartoons, Rush is right (again).

No, he is wrong. Dead wrong.

As Coulter pointed out CPPA didn't stop (or even slow down) the garbage from Hollywood. No one was arrested under CPPA for filming Traffic or American Beauty, for example. CPPA had been around since 1995. Coulter is right. Rehnquist is right. Rush is being a fool. The FBI didn't target Hollywood, did it?

The pornographers went whining to the courts about first amendment rights when their speech was never threatened. The law was not written to harass Hollywood, but to close the loophole child pornographers and pedophiles were using. Re-read law and take this out: "or appears to be." There was no point in writing a law to cover virtual child porn without "or appears to be." It would be meaningless.

191 posted on 04/25/2002 1:37:59 PM PDT by keri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies ]


To: keri
No, he is wrong. Dead wrong.

What real children were protected by the "or appears to be" clause of the CPPA?

199 posted on 04/25/2002 2:09:33 PM PDT by Redcloak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson