Supremes say Child Porn OK!!??!

[aknimitz]

The Supreme Court of the United States held in a 6-3 majority that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech saves the day and strikes down major parts of the Child Pornography Preventation Act.  I was incredibly surprised by this decision ... as it appears is the rest of the legal community.

Here are a few excerpts ...

From the majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on behalf of himself and Justice John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer:

"Our society, like other cultures, has empathy and enduring fascination with the lives and destinies of the young. Art and literature express the vital interest we all have in the formative years we ourselves once knew, when wounds can be so grievous, disappointment so profound and mistaken choices so tragic, but when moral acts and self-fulfillment are still in reach."

"The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it ... First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."

From Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia:

"The CPPA can be construed to prohibit only the knowing possession of materials actually containing visual depictions of real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, or computer generated images virtually indistinguishable from real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The mere possession of materials containing only suggestive depictions of youthful-looking adult actors need not be so included."

"The aim of ensuring the enforceability of our nation's child pornography laws is a compelling one. The CPPA is targeted to this aim by extending the definition of child pornography to reach computer-generated images that are virtually indistinguishable from real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct."

[hblair]

I'm sure NAMBLA will like this decision. Freaky isn't it?

[funkedup]

It's pretty hard to defend kid porn.  But I gotta agree with the principle of the decision.

[hblair]

You can make any stupid decision sound good with enough well written diatribe. I'm sure the nazi movement sounded sensible to the germans early on. Take a big step back and look at this with your common-sense glasses on. Are they not they saying that defending peoples first ammendment rights take precedence, therefore it is ok for innocent children to be sexually exploited? The rights of people to view child porn is more important than protecting the kids from losing their virginity at what? 4? 5?

This is some freaky chit.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by hblair
You can make any stupid decision sound good with enough well written diatribe. I'm sure the nazi movement sounded sensible to the germans early on.

Sorry HB, you've lost any arguement pertaining to this thread, by default, as you were the first to use the term "nazi".

I have to tell, how surprise I am,  that you, being so experienced in bbs's and all, would pull this card so damn quick.

[majic]

nm

[Voss]

The interpretation of such potentially subjective terminology could be misconstrued as a prohibition of unalienable rights. The laws, as posed, would open too many frivolous cases to prosecution and impend persecution for an individuals’ thought processes. It is enough that today we allow investigations into 'why' acts have been perpetrated without opening the possibility of potential thought as a crime.

[Sandman]

Not what the Supreme Court decided. Child pornography is illegal. No question. The issue was whether or not "virtual" child porn was a crime. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that it is.

Change the criminal activity from child pornography to killing or beating someone. No one questions the legality of games such as Grand Theft Auto III or Max Payne. It's virtual crime. Not real.

Now... if you think that virtual child pornography should be illegal, I expect that you'll also consider most first person shooters to be illegal as well. What about flight sims with guns? Is it okay to shoot down an aircraft? What if that aircraft has virtual people on board? What if that aircraft is a completely unarmed C-47?

Starting to sound a little silly, isn't it?

[hblair]

Originally posted by Thrawn


Sorry HB, you've lost any arguement pertaining to this thread, by default, as you were the first to use the term "nazi".

I have to tell, how surprise I am,  that you, being so experienced in bbs's and all, would pull this card so damn quick.

I wasn't implying that the child porn industry were "nazis", just using the example of germany at the time being consumed so much by the nazi movement that they lost sight of right and wrong. I was comparing that to societys view of porn these days. People seem to be so consumed with it that child porn seems to be viewed as "bad, but hey we gotta look out after the first amendment because it's more important than those kids".

Using the nazi's in germany at that time may have been a bad example, but give me a break with the word "nazi cannot be used". That's just a crock.

[hblair]

What is virtual child pornography sandman? Me don't know.

[Sandman]

One example is movies...

Kennedy said a number of acclaimed movies, filmed with young adult actors and actresses who only looked like minors, explore themes that fall within the wide sweep of the law's prohibitions.

Kennedy cited the award-wining movies "Traffic," which has the 16-year-old daughter of the nation's drug czar trading sex for drugs, and "American Beauty," with a middle-aged man dreaming about having sex with his daughter's teen-age friend.

He said anyone who possessed these or hundreds of other films that contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity would be subject to the law's severe punishment, a maximum of five years in prison.

Kennedy said themes of teen-age sexual activity and sexual abuse of children have inspired countless literary works. He said William Shakespeare in "Romeo and Juliet" created the most famous pair of teen-age lovers, one of whom was just 13.

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(A), but also any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, 2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, 2256(8)(D). Thus, 2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called virtual child pornography, that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology. Section 2256(8)(D) is aimed at preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography.

[Tac]

Actually, from what I know, the bill was passed with a sleight of hand in the wording.

The original law said nothing that LOOKED like child pornography was acceptable.

The problem is, "virtual" child pornography (aka over 18 but LOOK like they were 12 or so.. supressed hormones or something).

According to the old law, even movies that hinted sexuality with a minor was punishable by 5yrs jail and fine. Well, what do you make of films and classics like Romeo and Juliet? Traffic? American Beauty? By that law just having a vhs tape of those would land you in jail. Thats one of the points.

The other "virtual" pornography was the well-known trick of altering images with computers. You can get a pic of.. say.. the girl that played the slutty daughter of Al Bundy and edit it so that she looks even younger (and like a minor).

That second kind of pornography is under the old,original law, punishable (and I agree).

[funkedup]

Shooting people in the head is illegal...
But looking at pictures of people getting shot in the head is not illegal.
It's sick, but it ain't illegal.
This little thing called the Constitution.  Give it a read ol'HB.  

[Sandman]

Here is the opinion of the court.

You'll also find the dissenting opinion.

[Eagler]

another win for the pervs .. Hustler's Larry Flynt smiling as he dreams up new "cartoon" ideas

another loss for the country's morality .. what's left of it

I'd rather error on the side of being over cautious when it comes to child pornography - virtual or not. It feeds sick toejame to sick minds.

just another day in paradise ...