Supreme Court strikes down ban on virtual child pornography

Associated Press ^ | 4-16-02

[AmericanInTokyo]

you are right. perversion on the installment plan. take out 'virtual' and 'child'; that does not negate the fact that it is still 'pornography'. Who can be the real winners here?

[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.

Yeah! That's another point! I mean, here we are with the Congress and Senate passing laws directly striking down political speech -- and the President passing it! -- and on the other hand, we are bending over backwards (pardon the pun) for pedophiles!

[Phantom Lord]

People may not be able to make a visual distinction, but there clearly is and should be a LEGAL distinction.

As I see it, the only difference between a drawing of 'child porn' and virtual child porn is the realism. NO children were used in the production of either.

Good call by the court.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Easy with throwing the words around. "Socialism" is an economic term, my friend. Morality is not Economy or the Means of Production, it is creating the parameters of a Clean Society versus (perhaps) your view of chaos and unrestrained evil.

[proxy_user]

Computers make things very confusing. Since digital data is binary, all pictures are in fact just ones and zeros. This means that each picture, whatever its contents, is just a number, a very large integer. If you counted high enough, you would eventually create every possible picture.

Still, I think it is reasonable to ban some very large integers and make others legal. Just don't count too high...

[Phantom Lord]

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

There is a big difference between "socially wrong" and constitutional and legal.

[Lazamataz]

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."

Given that everything in life is quantifiable, would you not agree that placing the silverwear in a manner Martha Stewart would disdain, is several orders of magnitude less 'socially wrong' than yanking it to CyberCindy KiddiePack 7.0?

[DaughterofEve]

No, the decision absolutely stinks. Your reaction is appropriate.

[Lazamataz]

Still, I think it is reasonable to ban some very large integers

I'd like to see some strict controls on infinity, personally.

[Egg]

Tell me about the wisdom of the court when some pervert molests your kid. This trash merely whets the appetite for the real thing, just as pornography does. There is absolutely no justification for the existence of child pornography. If this is what constitutes 'freedom', we're on our way to destruction.

[RobbyS]

something is just wrong here, and I cannot put my finger on it. What is wrong is the hypocrisy of the entertainment industry and the general public for tolerating its crap. If it didn't make money, it wouldn't happen.

[Redleg Duke]

Oh, the brownies will be chortling over this today.

[AmericanInTokyo]

What is the basis of our Constitution and legal system? Where did laws come from? How many years can you trace it back? Is this (law and order) an entirely subjective human experience developed over years? When/where did 'law' start?

[jlogajan]

Easy with throwing the words around. "Socialism" is an economic term, my friend. Morality is not Economy or the Means of Production, it is creating the parameters of a Clean Society versus (perhaps) your view of chaos and unrestrained evil.

Well to the dedicated social engineer, the distinction between economics and any other parameter of life is not significantly meaningful.

To the economist, economics is the means of human interaction.

People who try to enforce "socially redeeming" are social engineers engaged in restricting human interaction -- economics writ large.

Your distinction is, hence, largely arbitrary. "Socially redeeming" is a phrase of socialistic intent whether you like it or not.

[Phantom Lord]

If this court decision is going to cause children to be molested, what caused it prior to the decision?

As I said in a post above, there is a huge difference between what is morally/socially wrong and what is CONSTITUTIONAL and LEGAL.

[discostu]

Nice strawman. Sorry charley but there's a strict "no adult content" rule at FR. I don't think anyone out there wants to get banned for the pleasure of proving you wrong for the 5 minutes or so it would take the administrators to delete the post.

The simple fact is this was a bad law. It left wide open the definition of "child pornography" to basically be anything that anyone, anywhere thinks possibly that the subjects depicted might be under age and could be engaged in a sexually explicit act. That's a dangerous thing, how does this law react when the people involved are folks like Leonardo DeCaprio and Kate Moss (you know, people that puberty clearly skipped and they look 12 for most of their life).

Child pornography is illegal because children having sex is illegal. The porn rules as they stand are pretty easy: if the act is illegal pictures of the act are illegal. As soon as you open the door for how the pictures can be interpretted you're in a very dangerous land where people are going to jail because the judge is a sicko not because they are.

[firebrand]

Without knowing anything about this case, my guess is that it's legal under the Child Pornography Act, but it's still obscene. Perhaps the side that was against it brought suit on the wrong grounds.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Every single one of us who stops for a red traffic light, is complicent in 'social engineering'.

[jlogajan]

There is absolutely no justification for the existence of child pornography. If this is what constitutes 'freedom', we're on our way to destruction.

There is "absolutely no justification" for smoking either and it has killed far more kids than all forms of pornography combined.