Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court strikes down ban on virtual child pornography
Associated Press ^ | 4-16-02

Posted on 04/16/2002 7:32:20 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:08 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban on virtual child pornography Tuesday, ruling that the First Amendment protects pornography or other sexual images that only appear to depict real children engaged in sex.

The 6-3 ruling is a victory for both pornographers and legitimate artists such as moviemakers, who argued that a broad ban on simulated child sex could make it a crime to depict a sex scene like those in the recent movies "Traffic" or "Lolita."


(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: childpornography; scotuslist; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 541-551 next last

1 posted on 04/16/2002 7:32:20 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Good decision. One small step against BIG GOVERNMENT and THE MAN.
2 posted on 04/16/2002 7:34:15 AM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zarf
and more kiddie porn, yum (sarcasm)
3 posted on 04/16/2002 7:35:38 AM PDT by ffusco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I am somehow troubled by this ruling. I know that it does not actually hurt a real child to have a virtual image of child porn, and I know there is a really fine line as to appearing to be a child and actually being one -- some 12 year olds looking like 21 and some 21 year olds looking like 12 and all -- but damn, something is just wrong here, and I cannot put my finger on it.
4 posted on 04/16/2002 7:40:22 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Thank God. This would have been the first step towards government censorship of all sorts of things that had nothing at all to do with child porn. (And the left-wing "for the children!" psychos take note: Real child porn remains as illegal as it ever was.)
5 posted on 04/16/2002 7:40:31 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
but damn, something is just wrong here, and I cannot put my finger on it.

Well, obviously it's creepy to think of anyone getting their kicks off fake child porn too, even if it doesn't involve an actual child. I think that's what you're feeling.

6 posted on 04/16/2002 7:42:00 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
What is the difference between virtual images 'which appear to simulate sex acts' and the real thing? Considering how realistic virtual technology - or the virtual "arts" - has become, I don't see how you can make an honest distnction between the two.
7 posted on 04/16/2002 7:42:07 AM PDT by Joan912
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zarf
Yeah--big victory <\sarcasm>

Now we'll have police and investigators turning into experts on whether a picture was doctored or genuine. In no time people will scoff at the great lengths gone to make the distinction. In short, this is the next step toward legalized pedophilia.

United we stand, indeed.

8 posted on 04/16/2002 7:43:46 AM PDT by Egg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
pedophiles win again
9 posted on 04/16/2002 7:44:36 AM PDT by arielb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Those who think the now-Constitutionally protected, nefarious material that is being allowed to prevail see little wrong with it, should have the intellectual courage right here and right now in Free Republic to stand up and post a sample of it right here.

Such are they confident that there is nothing socially wrong with this. If they can't, then they must know in their hearts that something is patently wrong and unacceptable about it and there is no socially redeeming quality to it.

10 posted on 04/16/2002 7:45:15 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I reckon this means I can keep my videos of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" and "Porky's".
11 posted on 04/16/2002 7:45:18 AM PDT by aomagrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Well, obviously it's creepy to think of anyone getting their kicks off fake child porn too, even if it doesn't involve an actual child. I think that's what you're feeling.

There ya go. That's what it is. Maybe this legal ruling makes LEGAL sense, but somehow it does not have MORAL clarity.

I dunno. I guess the courts have spoken. And who knows, maybe if the kiddie porn people spend all their time on PhotoShop 6.1, they won't be fondling little Tommy and Tammy down the street.

Just weirds me out, is all.

12 posted on 04/16/2002 7:45:27 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
You can't have the government telling you how you can arrange pixels in a picture. That's the bottom line.

It's a victory for the sickos and weirdos, but it's still the right decision, which is confusing.

13 posted on 04/16/2002 7:46:14 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I just know I'm setting myself up her and my disclaimer won't help any, but here goes anyway.

DISCLAIMER: I have never been in possesion of, or desired to be in possession of, nor seen, child pron. I still don't, and I will never attempt to be in possession of or see child porn.

But still, how does the consumer (a.k.a. disgusting pervert) tell the difference?

14 posted on 04/16/2002 7:46:14 AM PDT by freedomcrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joan912
What is the difference between virtual images 'which appear to simulate sex acts' and the real thing? Considering how realistic virtual technology - or the virtual "arts" - has become, I don't see how you can make an honest distnction between the two

A child must be harmed for the real stuff to be made. No children are harmed in making the fake stuff.

15 posted on 04/16/2002 7:46:31 AM PDT by AUgrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo
socially redeeming quality

... is a socialist mantra.

16 posted on 04/16/2002 7:46:43 AM PDT by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
What's wrong is that, regarless of the individual merit one way or the other with this case, the First Amendment has become a question about the commerical rights of pornographers rather than preserving rights for political speech.
17 posted on 04/16/2002 7:47:05 AM PDT by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: zarf
It's kinda like laws banning candy cigarettes
18 posted on 04/16/2002 7:47:34 AM PDT by Darkshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo
Such are they confident that there is nothing socially wrong with this.

Sure there is something socially wrong with it, just like there is something socially wrong with setting a table with the knife on the left. Lots of things that are legal are "socially wrong."
19 posted on 04/16/2002 7:47:34 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dead
It's a victory for the sickos and weirdos, but it's still the right decision, which is confusing.

Yeah, I know. That's it in a nutshell. I can see the legal and practical reasons why this law was wrong, but on the other hand, I really wouldn't mind putting the screws to the pedophiles... so I have mixed feelings, big time.

20 posted on 04/16/2002 7:48:02 AM PDT by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 541-551 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson