Replies

Without this law, it will be impossible, in practice, to prosecute any child pornography cases
Nonsense. This case was about computer created images, not actual live children.
Child porn laws are here for one reason: to protect children from abuse. What children are being abused in drawings. It might make the user think about doing it, but you can't regulate what you think a picture makes someone think about.

Child porn laws are here for one reason: to protect children from abuse. What children are being abused in drawings. It might make the user think about doing it, but you can't regulate what you think a picture makes someone think about.

If you have ever seen the quality of some of the computer generate video games like Dead or Alive 3 on XBox, you can imagine how sick and graphic and realistic this newly protected free speech is gonna become. It's a bad ruling, pornography was never intended to be protected under the 1st Amendment.

One problem however, is, that with advancing technology, it will become increasingly difficult - eventually perhaps even impossible - to determine the difference. Likewise, that challenge for the courts. Children will be victimized in this process. Thus, Congress is going to have to draft, and pass a new, more specific, law.

Say you have a pair of young looking 18 yr olds having sex for pay in front of your camera, but despite their careful razor work, starvation diets and youthful appearance, you just don't think they'll pass for preteens and sell to audience you intend to target. So you take the digital images of your neighbors' cute little kids playing in the yard, and you paste their heads on the bodies of your paid "models" (prostitutes). No child was sexually abused to make that image. The writers of the Constitution would be proud of your independent American spirit, right?

You do not know how pedophiles "use" kiddie porn. 1) Itfeeds their addiction to sex with children, which means more real children will be assaulted. 2) They show kiddie pornto their would-be victims to convince them that suchbehavioris okay.
Even "virtual" kiddie porn affects "real" children in these two ways. This is a fact in the real world that the Supreme Court chose to ignore. But it is still true.
This is not a "freedom of speech" case for thepornographers. This is a "freedom from honesty" case forsix Justices of the Supreme Court.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to fight Campaign Finance "Reform/".

Click here for latest: "Memo to Yasser from Irv on Career Choices."

Nonsense to you. Here is what some other misinformed person thought any my reply

” 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.

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 )