Fast passage of virtual child porn bill urged

Washington Times ^ | Thursday, May 9, 2002 | By Amy Fagan

[JohnHuang2]

House Republican leaders are pushing for fast action on a child-pornography bill that would circumvent the Supreme Court's decision allowing computer simulations of children having sex.

"Our intention is to put the bill on the fast track to get it into law quickly to protect children," said Stuart Roy, spokesman for House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Texas Republican.

[JohnHuang2]

Thursday, May 9, 2002

Quote of the Day by Common Tator 5/8/03

[spectre]

Hurry up before the internet is flooded with "perfectly legal" computerized virtual images depicting children in every conceivable pornographic pose.

Free speach my a**.

[Don Myers]

bttt

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. Stop this madness.

[eno_]

How sad to see Armey and DeLay writing thought-crime legislation.

[EdReform]

Bump

[BikerNYC]

They need to put a paragraph in the law to the effect that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

Oh yeah, that'll work. If they could put that in this bill, why not put it in every bill.

Would a painting be covered by this law?

[BikerNYC]

They could, of course, but in fact they don't put it in any of them.

They could try, but I really don't think it would have any legal effect. I don't think there is any area of law that the Congress can declare to be outside the jurisdiction of SCOTUS (at least without the consent of SCOTUS). SCOTUS has limited its own jurisdiction, but that's another matter.

[Ferris]

This will open the door to arrests and incarcerations for virtual murder, virtual robbery, virtual rape, virtual embezzlement, and all sorts of other virtual crimes that do not have a victim...

[lexington minuteman 1775]

The law better be written in a way the SCOTUS cannot deem it unconstitutional.It's time we protect our children from these bozos.There are victims in spite of what the Supreme Court ruling said and children will pay an awful price.

[BikerNYC]

Has any law ever been written that included in it a provision that the Supreme Court did not have the athority to review the constitutionality of that very law? I've never heard of one, but hey, it wouldn't be the first time.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Has any law ever been written that included in it a provision that the Supreme Court did not have the athority to review the constitutionality of that very law? I've never heard of one, but hey, it wouldn't be the first time.

Once that I know of-- one of the Reconstruction Era bills punishing ex-Confederates in some way (I don't remember the details). The Supreme Court upheld the limitation on its own jurisdiction.

The reason this hasn't been done more often is that there is a huge practical problem with passing a law and saying the Supreme Court can't review it: You need some court to prosecute people for violating the law, and if that court finds the law unconstitutional, the government can't appeal to the Supreme Court.

[FreeTally]

The Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002 would outlaw trafficking in child pornography, expand the definition of child pornography to include computer imaging and prevent defendants from blocking prosecution by claiming the material was an electronic creation.

Um, the SCOTUS already ruled that computer images can not be considered child pornography. Why are they trying this goofy crap again. What a waste of time and money. I guess they want to set a precedent for thought-crimes with a non-issue that people can easily be emotionally manipulated into supporting.

[BikerNYC]

The reason this hasn't been done more often is that there is a huge practical problem with passing a law and saying the Supreme Court can't review it: You need some court to prosecute people for violating the law, and if that court finds the law unconstitutional, the government can't appeal to the Supreme Court.

I see. So the Congress can limit the jurisdiction of SCOTUS with regard to any particular law, but not the lower courts, and since a District Court or Circuit Court might find the law unconstitutional, there would be no court left to overturn that decision.

I guess the Congress could not declare the constitutionality of a law off limits for any federal court (thankfully, in a way).

[Lurking Libertarian]

I see. So the Congress can limit the jurisdiction of SCOTUS with regard to any particular law, but not the lower courts, and since a District Court or Circuit Court might find the law unconstitutional, there would be no court left to overturn that decision. I guess the Congress could not declare the constitutionality of a law off limits for any federal court (thankfully, in a way).

Congress can limit the jurisdiction of any federal court to hear a particular kind of case, but once Congress gives a court jurisdiction to hear a case, it can't tell it how to decide that case. So if Congress gives the district courts jurisdiction to hear prosecutions under a child pornography law, it can't say, 'you only have jurisdiction to convict, you don't have jurisdiction to declare the law unconstitutional.' If it doesn't give the courts jurisdiction to hear cases under the law, it can't get a conviction. So if it wants to prosecute people under a law, it has to give some court the power to declare the law unconstitutional.

[Wright is right!]

"Um, the SCOTUS already ruled that computer images can not be considered child pornography. Why are they trying this goofy crap again?"

One reason and one reason only - and it's not all that moral, good-intention bologna that they're laying out ...

They're "trying this crap again" because they are DEATHLY AFRAID that if they DON'T, then their opponents this fall will paint them as "soft on child porn." It's a political stop-loss bill, nothing more, nothing less.

I, too, am absolutely APPALLED that our party is proposing thought-crime legislation. This is exactly what the Left wants us to do - kill off freedoms ourselves so they don't have to do it.

Face it. As long as there is humanity on this good green Earth, people will think bad, even evil thoughts. Our rule of law is predicated upon the premise that the consequences of violating the law are sufficient to maintain a civil society. There will always be those people who are so morally bankrupt that the consequences won't matter - and their ACTIONS should be punished. But it is against the nature of God to prohibit thought - no matter how abhorent it might be to one or another segment of society.

I'm totally against child porn, but if some geek wants to sit around with his computer and manipulate electrons and pixels to his taste, he can do so as long as he takes no actions infringing upon the rights of others. The method - i.e., computer or crayola - doesn't matter. They're all just methods of moving electrons around.

And I also refuse to believe that committing an idea to celluloid, paper, or an electronic stream of data is, by itself, enough to incite persons of otherwise rational behavior to emulate those ideas. It is the job of society not to punish the thought, but to remove from the rest of society those who would react irrationally and to the harm of others from exposure to such material.

Michael