Posted on 04/24/2002 3:56:03 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Most of these are not cartoons. A sicko could take a picture of your child at a public swimming pool, go home to his computer and change the photo enough that it would be considered computer generated and your child could be depicted in a sexual act with an adult.
With software programs like Electric Image Animation you can create realistic 3-D human bodies with blank faces and take anyone's face and map it to the body. This body could be doing anything.
How do you think tabloids get a three-breasted woman pictured on the front. She certainly did not look like a cartoon!
So imagine finding out your child is on a porn site and there's nothing you can do about under the current ruling because the picture was altered by a computer.
The act, or the image ?
Step-out on the thought: A fictional book that depicts an insurection against the US government.
Should this book be banned ?
Should I or you be put in prison for having a copy of said book ?
The "action" is against the law, not the image.
You're so intent on condescending that you don't recognise your own hypocrisy staring you in the face. :-}
According to Mr Amused, the right to life is not an unalienable right and thus subject to federalism while the right of pedophiles to virtual child pornography is an unalienable right and thus not subject to the tenth amendment.
Up is down, right is left, black is white. Yo comprendo.
PS: You are amusing.
I do but I don't think virtual kiddie porn is one of them. I don't want it near me and I don't want my grandkids anywhere near it. And I will be every bit as militant in keeping it away from them as the libertine militants are wont to be in making it available.
You made an erroneous statement.
I corrected you.
If that makes me a leftist, who gives a crap.
Nope, obscenity laws speak both to images and actions, victim and victimless. And those laws should be made by governements closest to the people not from a central authority.
Obviously you haven't read the ruling, because the part of the act that made such things a crime was never challenged. That was illegal before this ruling, it's still illegal after this ruling, and if you'd bothered to actually read the thing instead of shooting your mouth off, you'd know that. But hey, why let some inconvenient facts get in the way of a nice diatribe?
I think she misses the point, however. Just as the Courts must "sit in their Depends" to ensure Legal Abortion, they are bound to side with the Larry "Free Speech" Flynt pornographers every time.
Sexual liberation is a consummate form of political control. Why, without the Sexual Revolution, we'd probably never have had sufficient "crisis" to compel the need for Legal Abortion.
![](http://communities.msn.com/_Secure/0NAAAAJ8SwOogAyGy05zxucF!BOkGU*mQU2sQ4zMpivzj9vAAys*VT4TUFId!n9LxX6K7p7U0XEnlhAdHdPpABg/britsam.jpg")
So much horsecrap, so few shovels.
You're so intent on condescending that you don't recognise your own hypocrisy staring you in the face. :-}
I like a good sense of humor.
According to Mr Amused, the right to life is not an unalienable right and thus subject to federalism while the right of pedophiles to virtual child pornography is an unalienable right and thus not subject to the tenth amendment.
Ya got me, I don't believe thought should be criminalized by the gov't, state or fed. But that goes for all thoughts the good and the bad. And I believe states should be able to decide whether to ban abortion. If enough states ban it and band together, there's possibility for an amendment. I just don't see getting it done by an act of Congress.
Up is down, right is left, black is white. Yo comprendo.
When you're done again, re read the ruling and then read the dissents. Then take a peak at the 24 states who have enacted legislation banning virtual kiddie porn. This ruling makes those laws unconstitutional in point of fact.
When you're done with all of that try to convince yourself that freedom and liberty come from an omnipotent central government ruling that a pedophiles right to virtual child pornography is protected somewhere in the first amendment. An amendment crafted by the same men who crafted and lived with obsecnity laws in their states.
You know darn well that they don't have "real pictures", but doctored ones. Although the tabloids do get sued from time to time by the stars for altered photos, they still do it.
Virtual child porn is different. No child is harmed to make it. What this law did was to ban those images, but for no good reason. As I've been trying to get you to see over on that other thread, the government must have an interest in a particular matter before it goes passing laws. The government has no interest in protecting cartoon characters from pornographers. The law in question didn't outlaw the images because they are obscene. And it couldn't have been attempting to protect children from harm since no children were involved. It outlawed these images based upon an arbitrary criterion. It went far beyond the existing obscenity laws. As to the state laws, those may still be valid provided that they are based upon standards of what's obscene. If they are carbon copies of what Congress passed, then they'll be struck down as well.
No kiddin? And guys like you will support that because if the law is something you like then you are for a strong central government dictating to the masses.
Obscenity is in the eyes of the beholder, thats why obscenity laws are left to the states. To me, virtual kiddie porn is an obscenity, period. I'm well aware you have a different opinion and if your fellow citizens agree with you then you can have child porn to your hearts content.
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.