The Pro Porn Court?

WYLL.com, NEWSMAX.com, RFMNews.com, FederalObserver.com ^ | 4.17.2002 | Kevin McCullough

[general_re]

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?

I don't believe the increased abuse of children is an inevitable result of this ruling, but I accept that it is a possibility. Reasonable people may disagree.

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.

I would be wrong to do so. I accepted the reality of child abusers before this ruling, and I accept it afterwards. I will continue to be vigilant against such abuses of my children, just as I was before.

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?

A rather loaded question. If I am properly doing my job as a parent, I will be much less likely to have to deal with such a contingency. And from my perspective, a real man doesn't ask "the village" to raise his children for him.

I believe that's a fair enough answer to your questions for now. Would you like to answer mine? What are the potential negative consequences and implications if the court had ruled in the opposite direction?

[gdani]

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?

Generally, the more guns there are, the more people get shot and killed. Does that mean guns should be outlawed?

[Calico Cat]

Why was a 'mainstream' pornographic lobbying group the plaintiff in this case? Could it be that the legit adult sites want to start adding child porn (virtual, as the case may be) to its sites? If you're going to invoke the slippery slope fallacy, wouldn't this be a 'mainstreaming' of kiddy porn? If you don't believe it, look at how porn has changed in the last thirty years: while teenagers may have had access to the relatively mild images of 'Playboy' and 'Penthouse' in the 1970s, the mainstream keeps getting more and more extreme to attract an increasingly jaded audience: look at the success of Max Hardcore and Extreme Productions. In 1972, would anybody have believed that these creeps would have been allowed to push the crap they're making? What makes kiddy porn any different? As much as I love liberty and the First Amendment, this Supreme Court decision frightens me. "I've seen the future, baby--it is murder." (Leonard Cohen)

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

I don't see this as a good decision. I see this as another way to normalize pedophilia. What's to stop a pedophile from showing this garbage to a child, or children accessing it for themselves and being told that intergenerational sex is normal? If it's legal, and the virtual figures are realistic, why in the world would a child think it was wrong?

[cynicalman]

Wonder how the Justices would feel if they saw their grandchildren's nude picture on the web

For some of the justices their grandchildren would be adults, I think you mean their great grandchildren.

Who voted which way??????

[general_re]

Your personal attack is uncalled for.

Thank you for that, but it's okay, really. Emotions run high on this issue, and I am not a hothouse flower, likely to wilt under such pressure ;)

I am, however, an optimist, insofar as I believe that most people are susceptible to reasoned arguments, and I think that an eminently reasonable argument can be made here. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone suggests that I myself am a pedophile, but so be it. I can withstand such slings to present what I feel to be the truth.

[tdadams]

Distasteful or not, the ONLY factor in this decision should be whether there is injury to children.

I wouldn't go with that argument. There are all too many people who believe that facilitating injury or the potential to commit injury is equally criminal. I've already heard it said by those who normally are very studious and discerning on issues of constitutional law, that even virtual porn fosters lust and can thereby lead to sexual assualt.

That's blurring the lines to an unacceptable degree in my opinion. It's becoming my unofficial motto: Liberty can be abridged to an endless extent if we want to base laws on "what if."

[general_re]

Why was a 'mainstream' pornographic lobbying group the plaintiff in this case? Could it be that the legit adult sites want to start adding child porn (virtual, as the case may be) to its sites?

Not having read the briefs of both sides, nor being able to peer into their hearts, I cannot authoritatively answer this question. However, the court's decision seems to indicate that their stated objection was that it would have the effect of criminalizing material that was currently permissible, and that there was no underlying crime within "virtual" porn, as the court's previous rulings on child pornography had required.

It may be possible that they wish to add such "virtual" child pornography to their stock-in-trade. However, neither of us know that to be the case, and it would be imprudent to behave as though we knew something we do not yet know.

If you're going to invoke the slippery slope fallacy, wouldn't this be a 'mainstreaming' of kiddy porn?

Possibly. However, the underlying rationale for criminalizing child pornography has always been that such pornography is A) evidence of a real crime, involving harm to real children, and; B) the dissemination of child pornography leads to a demand for, and the production of, more child pornography, and hence more harm to children. "Virtual" child pornography fails this test on both counts. The children depicted are not real, and hence no real children are harmed in the production or distribution of such material.

Fair enough, yes? Now, I'll ask you to return the favor - would you address my original question, and tell me what you believe to be the potential negative consequences and implications, if any, had the court ruled to uphold this law?

[truenospinzone]

I don't see this as a good decision. I see this as another way to normalize pedophilia people using guns to commit crimes. What's to stop a pedophile gun-owning criminal from showing this garbage weapon to a child, or children accessing it for themselves watching Goodfellas and being told that intergenerational sex shooting innocent people is normal? If it's legal, and the virtual figures are realistic, why in the world would a child think it was wrong?

[FreeTally]

People need to quite hyperventilating.

The only people that are hyperventilating are those who claim this decision legalizes child pornography or will now protect it on technicalities. The only thing thos does is protect innocent parties whom the law could have been used against even if no children ever had sex in the movies or pictures or writings. Im not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

[general_re]

I almost forgot - one more thing.

As much as I love liberty and the First Amendment, this Supreme Court decision frightens me.

It frightens me too. But animals are not capable of reason, and hence are ruled by their fears. I am not an animal, and neither are you. Let us stop and think about this, and reason together as men, rather than behaving as unthinking animals...

[beckett]

What was the vote Justice by Justice? And who wrote the opinion? Anybody know?

[Kevin Curry]

The are no more pro-porn than the man who provides car keys and a fifth of whiskey to a drunk is pro-drunk driving.

[Clara Lou]

Hey, I'm on your side. The hyperventilators need to read up just a little bit (or a lot) and look at more than a paragraph of the opinion or the title of this thread.

[Amore]

Child pornography incites child abuse. Period.

This is my concern. From all that I have read, these child abusers start with child porn and it gets them going but, after a while, it loses its thrill, it's not enough, and they progress to trying to make actual contact.

[general_re]

Justice Kennedy wrote for the court, striking down the law, with which Justices Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, and Steven concurred. Justice Thomas wrote a seperate concurring opinion. Justice O'Connor concurred in part, and dissented in part, voting with the minority. Justices Rehnquist and Scalia dissented.

Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Thomas in the majority. O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Scalia in the minority.

[Kevin Curry]

Im not sure why this is so hard to grasp.

Because it is slippery, foul, and false. This decision will open the floodgates of kiddie porn. Pedophiles acorss this land are cheering. Only an idiot would fail to understand that.

Or a pro-porn libertarian. But I repeat myself.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Thomas in the majority. O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Scalia in the minority.

Actually, only Rehnquist voted to uphold the whole law. The majority struck down two provisions (one banning using adults to play children, and the other banning "virtual" images of children), and O'Connor and Scalia voted to strike down the first of those but not the second.

[general_re]

True. I wanted to break it down by votes, though. The case lists it like this:

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. OConnor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist, C.J., and Scalia, J., joined as to Part II. Rehnquist, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined except for the paragraph discussing legislative history.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Actually, you were more nearly correct than I was. Both Rehnquist and Scalia voted to uphold the whole law, and O'Connor voted to uphold one of the two challenged provisions and not the other. What confused me is that Scalia didn't write an opinion of his own, but joined in parts of Rehnquist's and parts of O'Connor's.