[kellynla]

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

[general_re]

I think they'd feel the same way you or I would feel. A nude picture of their grandchildren would have been illegal before this ruling.

Guess what? It's still illegal after this ruling.

[truenospinzone]

Well, if one of them had a grandchild shot and killed, they may personally want to see tighter gun restrictions. Doesn't mean they'd be justified in voting that way. This was the right decision by SCOTUS, even if it does creep most of us out.

[gdani]

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

Well, they'd probably make sure the person's prosecuted because nothing in yesterday's decision made the use of real children or "morphed" images using real children legal.

[SunStar]

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

That is already legal, provided their grandchildren are 18 or older.

[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??????

[MindBender26]

Sorry, but you make the pornographers argument for them. The issue is, is the harm in child porn to the child being exploited or to the adult viewer. Certainly we could make the argument that there is great harm to both.

Although I detest porn, as a conservative, I am adverse to the government regulating what I can watch in the privacy of my bedroom. Ergo, as an adult, let me be responsible for my own viewing, not the government.

This leaves the issue of harm to the child. If there is no human child involved, if it is simply computer driven animation, then there was no real human child to be injured.

I don't like it, but the court is right on this.

[Cold Heat]

You have this all wrong!

The nine voted against the thought police,nothing more.

[Wondervixen]

At risk of sounding like I'm siding WITH the decision, actual children are banned from involvement in any way shape or form.

Now, this brings to mind the questions at hand. Since actual children are banned, does this allow for adult porn stars to legally perpetrate the fantasy of adult males and lollypop licking, pony tailed little girls? Does it allow for skilled 3-D artists and sketch artists to render their works legally?

It just seems to me that allowing the perpetration of the fantasy is going to lead mentally unbalanced adults to go that way...Another liberal "great idea" that is frought with sickening side effects.

[Almondjoy]

As I said on another thread relating to this I don't like it but it's the right way to vote.. you vote the other way against virtual vices and you'll find that it's illegal to take drugs on TV or you'll find that it's illegal to simulate a bank robbery or it's illegal to bungee jump off a virtual bridge in a movie. No No.. the justice's have it right on this one even if it does suck.