Contact Kevin McCullough at kmc@wyll.com
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?
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.
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...
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.
I don't know what is so confusing about this. It is pretty straightforward to me. What do you find confusing about it?
Pictures of war increases the likelihood of war.
Pictures of people using guns increases the likelihood of guns being used.
Pictures of people drinking beer increases the likelihood of alchoholism.
Pictures of people using drugs increases the likelihood that other people will use drugs.
Pictures of homosexual parades increases the likelihood of straight people becoming gay.
I could go on but I think my point is made. While some of the above instances could carry some truth to them in certain people's minds, nobody would argue that all of the above was either possible or likely to occur. Furthermore nobody is doing anything about putting laws on the books that would ban any of the above pictures from existance. So why single out simulated pictures of a simulated act? It just doesn't make sense to me.
I'm all for stamping out pedophilia and NAMBLA but I want laws on the books that are specific and to the point. The law that just got struck down was overly vague and overly broad in it's scope.
It's not exactly like only the liberal wing of the Court rammed this decision down our throats you know. Clarence Thomas, not exactly a bastion of moderation let alone liberalism, sided with the majority. That alone should speak volumes that this was a bad law.
Ashcroft wants to decry this as the end of the world. What a bunch of baloney. He should quit whining about a bad law and get back to work on crafting a good law that will go after those that deserve it rather than just toss out a net and reel in whatever it catches.
Jesse Sharpless... John Haines... George Haines... John Steel...Ephriam Martin...and Mayo... designing, contriving, and intending the morals, as well of youth as of divers other citizens of this commonwealth, to debauch and corrupt, and to raise and create in their minds inordinate and lustful desires ... in a certain house there ... scandalously did exhibit and show for money ... a certain lewd ... obscene painting representing a man in an obscene ... and indecent posture with a woman, to the manifest corruption and subversion of youth and other citizens of this commonwealth...offending [the]dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Defendent argued that his acts were in private and protected. The Court Disagreed. Judge Duncan Delivered the Verdict.
The defendents have been convicted, upon their own confession, of conduct of great moral depravity...This court is...invested with power to punish not only open violations of decency and morality, but also whatever secretly tends to undermine the principles of society...
Whatever tends to the destruction of morality, in general, may be punishable criminally. Crimes are public offenses, not because they are perpetrated publically, but because their effect is to injure the public. Buglary, though done in secret, is a public offense; and secretly destroying fences is indictable.
Hence it follows, that an offense may be punishable, if in it's nature and by it's example, it tends to the corruption or morals; although it not be committed in public.
The defendents are charged with exhibiting and showing...for money, a lewd,... and obscene painting. A picture that tends to excite lust, as strongly as writing; and the showing of a picture is as much a publication as selling a book...
If the privacy of the room was a protection, all the youth of a city might be corrupted, by taking them, one by one, into a chamber, and there inflaming their passions by the exhibition of lascivious pictures. In the eye of the law, this would be a publication, and a most pernicious one.
In demonstrating the strong feelings of the court on this issue, a second Justice, by the name of Judge Yeats, added to the pronouncement of the courts decision.
Although every immoral act, such as lying, ect... is not indictable, yet where the offense charged is destructive of morality in general...it is punishable at common law. The destruction of morality renders the power of government invalid...
The Corruption of the public mind, in general, and debauching the manners of youth, in particular, by lewd and obscene pictures exhibited to view, must necessarily be attended with the most Injurious consequences...
No man is permitted to corrupt the morals of the people, secret poision cannot be thus desseminated.
Yesterday it became legal to own, share, and create child porn (because no one will ever be able to prove it wasn't done digitally - and they'll soon stop trying). I've never seen a darker day. Do you know what this country will be like in three years after creating an appetite for this awful stuff?
That case upheld a prohibition on the distribution and sale of child pornography, as well as its production, because these acts were “intrinsically related” to the sexual abuse of children
All the suspect must do now is claim that he created the image on a computer. Photographic evidence in the suspect's custody is no longer enough for prosecution.
The child pornography laws exist to protect children, not to punish pornography. As repugnant as even simulated child porn is, it must be protected under the first ammendment. I have seen some discussions about this being a "free speech" issue. It is not. It is a "free press" issue. We must allow the ill of simulated child porn to protect the real freedoms of the first ammendment.
You can't pick and choose your freedoms and disparage others.
Now, if we can just get the court to strike down CFR and the gun control laws.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Jamais reculez á tyrannie un pouce!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! Never give an inch to tyranny!)
LoanPalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)