Ashcroft, GOPers Seek Anti-Child Porn Law

FOXNews.com ^ | Wednesday, May 01, 2002 | FOXNews.com

[grimalkin]

WASHINGTON

[concerned about politics]

I'm with Ashcroft. The ruling just pours more crap into the already overflowing sewer of liberalism. One step closer to pedophillia "tolerance," comming to a future near you.

[general_re]

As is typical of the government, the House's website is not responding, so I can't go see if Rep. Smith has made the text of the bill available or not. Anyone else got a way to get it?

Be interesting to see if they tried to follow Thomas's guidance about such a law....

[Redcloak]

Here here!! Virtual children deserve the same protections that real children do!

Do it for the virtual children.

[general_re]

It's never too early to start pandering to them - someday they'll grow up to be virtual voters, after all ;)

[Redcloak]

One might even grow up to be the first virtual President.

[Dimensio]

Saying the Supreme Court's ruling striking down parts of an anti-child pornography law enables child molesters to escape prosecution, Attorney General John Ashcroft on Wednesday praised House legislation that would close a loophole on computer-generated images of children engaged in sex acts.

I don't buy it. The ruling did not address any laws that cover child molestation. Ashcroft is hyping this up to gain support and preemptively tar anyone who might try to find fault with the bill.

[general_re]

One might even grow up to be the first virtual President.

We had one of those, remember?

[GrandMoM]

bump

[M_TEN_FORTYFIVE]

Now if I recall correctly, the rationalization for restricting the First Amendment Rights of pornographers to produce Child Pornography (CP) was that Children were being exploited and injured in the process of making the CP. Now that the CP can be produced without Children were being exploited and injured in the process where is the rationalization?
I am not defending CP or pornographers.
I just am curious what the legal angle (spin) is for this new encroachment of the Bill of Rights.
The "For the Children" reason is getting rather shopworn methinks!

[Goldsters]

They never should have gone to court with that law. It was much too vague and would have made illegal things that are innocuous.

If they narrow it down to only cover realistic child porn, that's great. It is too easy to use real kids and manipulate the photo with a click or two to make it "virtual". Plus, if it is hard to tell the difference, it makes it far too easy for the real abusers to hide amongst the virtual.

[UnBlinkingEye]

Ashcroft is ludicrous, a holier than thou disgrace, a draper of statues.

Has any other candidate lost to a dead man?

[EdReform]

BTTT