Supreme Court strikes down ban on virtual child pornography

Associated Press ^ | 4-16-02

[Lurking Libertarian]

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

There are plenty of behaviors which are immoral, depraved and disgusting, and which should lead any decent person to shun anyone who engages in them, but which nonetheless should not be punishable by the force of the law, because of the risk of giving the government too much power.

[AmericanInTokyo]

....except perhaps for the free floating bohemian souls and other libertarians who subjectively decide to stop or go at an intersection based on their inner voice of freedom, forbid any dependence on group management of the prevailing social order

[jlogajan]

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

And your objection to socialism or communism would be what then?

[Phantom Lord]

As an example of how wrong this law was, parents have been tried and convicted of child pornography for taking pictures of their children in the bathtub! What parent in America doesnt have multiple pics of their young children in the bathtub?

What parent doesnt have a picture of their naked 2 year old doing something 2 year olds do?

[Egg]

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

The court ruling against all child pornography would not have totally eliminated pedophile molestation, no question. But there is nothing wrong with minimizing its occurence either. It's just too bad that this culture insists on championing the rights of perverts at the expense of everyone else. You know in your heart that this is NOT what the Founders had in mind when they insisted on a free speech clause.

[foreverfree]

bump

[Egg]

That's a red herring issue--this deals with kids involved in simulated sex. This is not justifiable, so you may as well stop trying.

[Tai_Chung]

In short, this is the next step toward legalized pedophilia.

There's a lot of truth to this statement. I've heard advocates on television call legalizing the possession of child pornography. They felt only the manufacturing of child pornography should be illegal since that is when the child is harmed.

[jlogajan]

The founders forgot to prohibit slavery. I don't think we should worry too much about what the founders thought per se.

[zarf]

The first amendment sucks, don't it!

[Egg]

There is "absolutely no justification" for smoking either and it has killed far more kids than all forms of pornography combined.I knew it wouldn't take long for the Libertarians to forget their little mantra about "as long as it doesn't harm anyone else." This trash will not harm anyone else directly, but it WILL result in a SIGNIFICANT increase in child molestation. And you think you're doing this country a favor, that's the scariest part.

[AmericanInTokyo]

the same as my general objections would be to anarchy

[Sandy]

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.

Bingo.

[Phantom Lord]

And further, my mother in law has a pic of my brother in law NAKED hanging in their kitchen! They are Jewish and its a picture of his Brise (sp?). Child pornography? Under the law, yes it could be and she could be prosecuted.

What about naked cartoon children? Bart and Lisa have been shown "naked" in several episodes. Bart naked going to the bathroom was put on the Springfield phone book! Child pornography? Under the law...

What is the difference between Bart Simpson naked and "virtual child porn"?
Answer... realism.

The court was right.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I have two thoughts here. One, you CAN tell the difference between computer generated images and real photos, when it comes to humans. Maybe in a few years the line will be blurred a bit we're just not there yet. If a child's actual picture or moving image was altered to put him or her into a sexual situation that did not exist in reality that child would be harmed, if only by reputation, so there is a difference.

Second, if the court had ruled for the ban I can see a situation where the makers of a serious film that depicted child abuse, say something along the lines of The Accused, or the episode last season of The Sopranos, that showed graphic rape scenes, would be hauled into jail on kiddie porn charges.

[jlogajan]

Can you be any more specific in your limitations of social engineering -- beyond "that's just the way I like it, no more no less."???

[Lazamataz]

The court was right.

I know, I know.

Still creeps me out though.

[Eternal_Bear]

Laws started when two or more human beings started living together. Laws therefore are social compacts. Even the most primitive groups eschew homicide and thievery within the group since it imperils the integrity of the group. Laws that help a group survive are maintained while those that do not, are cast off. It is the principle of natural selection at work. The process never ceases as circumstances are constantly changing.

[Egg]

The founders forgot to prohibit slavery. I don't think we should worry too much about what the founders thought per se.

No, they didn't forget--they didn't want to tackle this divisive issue while in the throes of battle against a foe they'd rather not fight and didn't want to risk being divided. There are many writings of the Founders cursing slavery and King George's refusal to allow the colonies to ban it. Study your history, bub, and maybe you wouldn't support such disgusting issues like legalized child pornography.