Posted on 04/17/2002 8:45:48 AM PDT by KMC1
It's not confusing to me... Just like a toy gun is not a real gun.
That is already legal, provided their grandchildren are 18 or older.
No.
This law was little different from most gun control laws, which are based on the premise that someone might do harm with an item, rather than focusing prosecution efforts on what harm is actually done. Actually, this USSC ruling might be a useful precident for restoring the 2nd Amendment...
Distasteful or not, the ONLY factor in this decision should be whether there is injury to children. There is not injury with "virtual" child porn, i.e. computer generated animation or young-looking adults.
I think this decision may actually benefit children, because the sicko scumbags who enjoy child pornography may no longer seek out children to have sex with (and record it on video). Now, they can simply view computer simulations, potentially leaving children untouched.
I'll play along, then. I am fully aware of the material that will be available after the ruling. "Virtual" child pornography, featuring images and videos of children in various sexual poses and situations will be available. The children so depicted will be entirely imaginary, and will not exist in the real world, but in the near-future, the images and depictions of "virtual" child-pornography may be indistinguishable from images and videos of actual child sexual abuse. As a result, it is possible that in some cases, child molesters will indeed use such material to lure children into abuse. Some children may be harmed or killed as a result of this decision.
I fully and freely accept all that as a possible result of this decision. I understand and accept the possible implications of this decision.
I still think they made the right decision.
Lest you think I have no personal stake in this, my children are 7 and 2. I think it was the right decision, but I accept the possibility that it will cause harm to some.
Now it's your turn. Why don't you tell me what the potential negative consequences and implications of banning this material might have been?
I merely commented that using real children via morphed imaging was, and still is, illegal. You seemed to indicate that Napolitano said that analysis is wrong.
People who find the distinction fiction and reality "confusing" used to be housed in institutions where they could be properly cared for. Now, they blast their delusions to the world on street corners, WYLL.com, NEWSMAX.com, RFMNews.com, and FederalObserver.com.
Bingo. I hope they overturn CFR.
However, if the courts cannot find justification in the law to make illegal something which is as blatantly bad for society as cyber-kiddy-porn, then I am concerned.
It may be time for people to start taking action against organizations that promote this kind of thing. The PETA and EarthFirsters do it on the left, maybe it is time for those of us on the right to start responding in kind.
Child pornography incites child abuse. Period. If someone were to molest my child, after double-tapping him (or her) twice in the ten ring, my next order of business would be to remove from this earth those who materially contributed to the crime.
If the courts will not act, then we should.
The issue of morphed images of children, in this context, fall under existing child porn laws and U.S. Supreme Court precedent that clearly keep the practice illegal -- without getting into libel laws.
I don't know what is so confusing about this. It is pretty straightforward to me. What do you find confusing about it?
Yeah, I can. That's why I don't want to agree with it. As perverse as it is, it's one of those "where do you draw the line" questions.
Personally, I'd push the line a lot further back. But can we do that constitutionally?
(Former)Judge Napolitano is not the be all end all authority on the ramifications of court decisions and (GASP!) could be off the mark(as I suspect).
I still think they made the right decision.
So you believe that promoting child pornography (real or virtual matters only to the subject of a photo, not to those who feel its ripple effects) despite the fact that it will without a doubt increase the sexual abuse of children?
You're quite a dad. I'm guessing you'd be singing a different tune if one of your children were abused by someone who was desensitized to the evil of child abuse by virtual kiddy porn. So, what say you: Would you just accept it if your child were abused and chalk it up to collateral damage in the extension of the 1st Amendment to cover perversity, or would you suddenly grow a pair and act like a man?
First, this has not been shown. Second, we don't ban expression because it could conceivably encourage evil behavior; to do so opens the door to total censorship of all media.
Would you just accept it if your child were abused and chalk it up to collateral damage in the extension of the 1st Amendment to cover perversity, or would you suddenly grow a pair and act like a man?
Your personal attack is uncalled for. Additionally, this is a complete non sequitor; nothing in this ruling diminishes the crime of abusing *actual* children.
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.