Posted on 04/17/2002 8:45:48 AM PDT by KMC1
Be afraid, be very very afraid. Last night on Fox News Channel on Brit Hume's Special Report, Brian Wilson reported on the comparison between the new TV show that mimics the Supreme Court and the actual Supreme Court as they both ruled on cases dealing with "virtual child pornography". The TV version voted 7 to 2 in the same direction that the actual Supreme Court voted (6 to 3). It would have been 7 to 2 in the actual had Sandra Day O'Connor taken a little more of her medication that morning.
In Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition (a pornography trade, lobbying, and activist group), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that images can show children having sex, children can be shown in nude or erotic poses, children can perform sexual acts, children can be shown having sex with adults, children can be shown having sex with their own or opposite gender. The only catch - as long as they are not actual children being shown. Sound Confusing? Well it is.
Yesterday's ruling basically opens the way up to allowing pedophilia, child porn, and child molestation to be a major theme of everything from movies to printed materials - as long as they can prove that, the children depicted aren't actually children.
Getting the Court to rule this way obviously thrilled the ACLU and other pro-porn groups across our nation. It obviously deeply cut the groups that are trying to stop one of our nation's most cruel vices from spreading. So what should we expect? More of the same from as best I can see it.
With the publication of the University of Minnesota Press book released three weeks ago promoting the idea that sex between children and adults is just neato keen, and now being followed up with the ruling from this court that children can be made legitimate sexual objects on screen, parents - be afraid, be very very afraid.
Load the shotguns, carry your concealed weapons and suspect every creep that talks to your kids in the grocery store. At the rate the U.S. is going you might just have to shoot someone to literally save the innocence of your own child.
Harsh rhetoric - hardly. Why is the pope this week bringing all the bishops from around the world to meet to discuss the issue of homosexual pedophilia (and a few isolated cases of heterosexual too) amongst the servants of the church? Why is the North American Man Boy Love Association still in business and doing better than ever before? What is the great defense as to why we should not allow children to be sexualized on film - even if adults are playing them or a computer generated them?
(Too be read with a whiny little voice while holding one's nose) "Because we might not get to see films like Traffic or American Beauty." I didn't see Traffic though I am aware that it was nominated for Best Picture the year it came out. But I did see American Beauty which was deemed 'Best Picture'. This little political perverted statement - made through the eyes of a Pretendlander as director - wished to paint the middle class conservative family in America as nothing more than twice adulterating, homophobic, pedophilic, drug addicted, twisted rot. The director's anger against the "right wing" was focused into an attempt to say, "this is how conservative middle class America REALLY lives". Pretendland loved it - that's way they rushed it to the Academy to be deemed "the best of the year". But church going America for the most part yawned as it came and went - it didn't represent most American families - and we knew it.
Pretendland has evidently wielded its logic to the halls of the Supreme Court. But what it has done in the meantime is make every child in America - more vulnerable to the stalking of men who wish to prey on little boys and girls.
I'm sorry Mr. & Ms. Justices of the Supreme Court - but you struck out on this one. Your reasoning was lame. Your decision was even worse.
Maybe you will wear it as a badge of honor that you made child porn the new "fetish du jour", but please take note, you weakened Americans today.
Thank goodness there is that 2nd Amendment! It's there just in case we need to protect ourselves day to day. You may be sitting there saying, "C'mon what's with all the 'protectionism'?" If that's you, well, never mind you won't ever get it anyway. For the rest of you, lock and load, and be very afraid, be very very afraid!
Contact Kevin McCullough at kmc@wyll.com
Guess what? It's still illegal after this ruling.
Well, they'd probably make sure the person's prosecuted because nothing in yesterday's decision made the use of real children or "morphed" images using real children legal.
I don't want to agree. But I have to...
Uh, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this yet....
So, in other words, you [I'm addressing the authors of the article, not the poster] recognize that the statute as written would have permitted the banning of American Beauty, but you think that's okay because you object to the political message of that film? And you think that's a power we should give to the government in a country in which Bill Clinton was elected twice?
Well, if what you say is accurate, I'm sorry Judge Napolitano can't be bothered to read beyond the 3rd page of the decision before he starts spouting off on TV about it.
From the decision:
Section 2256(8)(C) prohibits a more common and lower tech means of creating virtual images, known as computer morphing. Rather than creating original images, pornographers can alter innocent pictures of real children so that the children appear to be engaged in sexual activity. Although morphed images many fall within the definition of virtual child pornography, they implicate the interests of real children and are in that sense closer to the images in Ferber. Respondents do not challenge this provision, and we do not consider it.
ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, etal. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION etal.
Read it yourself. This was a bad law that was begging to be shot down. What really ought to concern people is that it took 5 years to get it killed. Those who are counting on a quick rescue by the courts from the onerous restrictions on free speech in the Campaign Finance Reform Act should think again. Bad laws take time to erase.
Even given this mistake, I still agree with this article of course. I just wish that those in the media would really take the time to check out relatively basic facts before they're put in print.
I think that banning a factious evil subject from videos, is a slippery slope we do not want to go down.
It's not confusing to me... Just like a toy gun is not a real gun.
That is already legal, provided their grandchildren are 18 or older.
No.
This law was little different from most gun control laws, which are based on the premise that someone might do harm with an item, rather than focusing prosecution efforts on what harm is actually done. Actually, this USSC ruling might be a useful precident for restoring the 2nd Amendment...
Distasteful or not, the ONLY factor in this decision should be whether there is injury to children. There is not injury with "virtual" child porn, i.e. computer generated animation or young-looking adults.
I think this decision may actually benefit children, because the sicko scumbags who enjoy child pornography may no longer seek out children to have sex with (and record it on video). Now, they can simply view computer simulations, potentially leaving children untouched.
I'll play along, then. I am fully aware of the material that will be available after the ruling. "Virtual" child pornography, featuring images and videos of children in various sexual poses and situations will be available. The children so depicted will be entirely imaginary, and will not exist in the real world, but in the near-future, the images and depictions of "virtual" child-pornography may be indistinguishable from images and videos of actual child sexual abuse. As a result, it is possible that in some cases, child molesters will indeed use such material to lure children into abuse. Some children may be harmed or killed as a result of this decision.
I fully and freely accept all that as a possible result of this decision. I understand and accept the possible implications of this decision.
I still think they made the right decision.
Lest you think I have no personal stake in this, my children are 7 and 2. I think it was the right decision, but I accept the possibility that it will cause harm to some.
Now it's your turn. Why don't you tell me what the potential negative consequences and implications of banning this material might have been?
I merely commented that using real children via morphed imaging was, and still is, illegal. You seemed to indicate that Napolitano said that analysis is wrong.
People who find the distinction fiction and reality "confusing" used to be housed in institutions where they could be properly cared for. Now, they blast their delusions to the world on street corners, WYLL.com, NEWSMAX.com, RFMNews.com, and FederalObserver.com.
Bingo. I hope they overturn CFR.
However, if the courts cannot find justification in the law to make illegal something which is as blatantly bad for society as cyber-kiddy-porn, then I am concerned.
It may be time for people to start taking action against organizations that promote this kind of thing. The PETA and EarthFirsters do it on the left, maybe it is time for those of us on the right to start responding in kind.
Child pornography incites child abuse. Period. If someone were to molest my child, after double-tapping him (or her) twice in the ten ring, my next order of business would be to remove from this earth those who materially contributed to the crime.
If the courts will not act, then we should.
The issue of morphed images of children, in this context, fall under existing child porn laws and U.S. Supreme Court precedent that clearly keep the practice illegal -- without getting into libel laws.
I don't know what is so confusing about this. It is pretty straightforward to me. What do you find confusing about it?
Yeah, I can. That's why I don't want to agree with it. As perverse as it is, it's one of those "where do you draw the line" questions.
Personally, I'd push the line a lot further back. But can we do that constitutionally?
(Former)Judge Napolitano is not the be all end all authority on the ramifications of court decisions and (GASP!) could be off the mark(as I suspect).
I still think they made the right decision.
So you believe that promoting child pornography (real or virtual matters only to the subject of a photo, not to those who feel its ripple effects) despite the fact that it will without a doubt increase the sexual abuse of children?
You're quite a dad. I'm guessing you'd be singing a different tune if one of your children were abused by someone who was desensitized to the evil of child abuse by virtual kiddy porn. So, what say you: Would you just accept it if your child were abused and chalk it up to collateral damage in the extension of the 1st Amendment to cover perversity, or would you suddenly grow a pair and act like a man?
First, this has not been shown. Second, we don't ban expression because it could conceivably encourage evil behavior; to do so opens the door to total censorship of all media.
Would you just accept it if your child were abused and chalk it up to collateral damage in the extension of the 1st Amendment to cover perversity, or would you suddenly grow a pair and act like a man?
Your personal attack is uncalled for. Additionally, this is a complete non sequitor; nothing in this ruling diminishes the crime of abusing *actual* children.
I don't believe the increased abuse of children is an inevitable result of this ruling, but I accept that it is a possibility. Reasonable people may disagree.
I'm guessing you'd be singing a different tune if one of your children were abused by someone who was desensitized to the evil of child abuse by virtual kiddy porn.
I would be wrong to do so. I accepted the reality of child abusers before this ruling, and I accept it afterwards. I will continue to be vigilant against such abuses of my children, just as I was before.
So, what say you: Would you just accept it if your child were abused and chalk it up to collateral damage in the extension of the 1st Amendment to cover perversity, or would you suddenly grow a pair and act like a man?
A rather loaded question. If I am properly doing my job as a parent, I will be much less likely to have to deal with such a contingency. And from my perspective, a real man doesn't ask "the village" to raise his children for him.
I believe that's a fair enough answer to your questions for now. Would you like to answer mine? What are the potential negative consequences and implications if the court had ruled in the opposite direction?
Generally, the more guns there are, the more people get shot and killed. Does that mean guns should be outlawed?
For some of the justices their grandchildren would be adults, I think you mean their great grandchildren.
Who voted which way??????
Thank you for that, but it's okay, really. Emotions run high on this issue, and I am not a hothouse flower, likely to wilt under such pressure ;)
I am, however, an optimist, insofar as I believe that most people are susceptible to reasoned arguments, and I think that an eminently reasonable argument can be made here. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone suggests that I myself am a pedophile, but so be it. I can withstand such slings to present what I feel to be the truth.
I wouldn't go with that argument. There are all too many people who believe that facilitating injury or the potential to commit injury is equally criminal. I've already heard it said by those who normally are very studious and discerning on issues of constitutional law, that even virtual porn fosters lust and can thereby lead to sexual assualt.
That's blurring the lines to an unacceptable degree in my opinion. It's becoming my unofficial motto: Liberty can be abridged to an endless extent if we want to base laws on "what if."
Not having read the briefs of both sides, nor being able to peer into their hearts, I cannot authoritatively answer this question. However, the court's decision seems to indicate that their stated objection was that it would have the effect of criminalizing material that was currently permissible, and that there was no underlying crime within "virtual" porn, as the court's previous rulings on child pornography had required.
It may be possible that they wish to add such "virtual" child pornography to their stock-in-trade. However, neither of us know that to be the case, and it would be imprudent to behave as though we knew something we do not yet know.
If you're going to invoke the slippery slope fallacy, wouldn't this be a 'mainstreaming' of kiddy porn?
Possibly. However, the underlying rationale for criminalizing child pornography has always been that such pornography is A) evidence of a real crime, involving harm to real children, and; B) the dissemination of child pornography leads to a demand for, and the production of, more child pornography, and hence more harm to children. "Virtual" child pornography fails this test on both counts. The children depicted are not real, and hence no real children are harmed in the production or distribution of such material.
Fair enough, yes? Now, I'll ask you to return the favor - would you address my original question, and tell me what you believe to be the potential negative consequences and implications, if any, had the court ruled to uphold this law?
The only people that are hyperventilating are those who claim this decision legalizes child pornography or will now protect it on technicalities. The only thing thos does is protect innocent parties whom the law could have been used against even if no children ever had sex in the movies or pictures or writings. Im not sure why this is so hard to grasp.
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.