Replies

I'm not backtracking; I'm addressing what the ruling and the law were about. The "backseat" image I described was illegal under that law, even if no children were involved in making it. The premise of kiddie porn laws is that they protect children from being involved in sexual acts that they are unable to consent to. This law made it illegal to merely imply that the images were of children; even if it were provable that the actors involved were adults. It was not written to protect children as existing child porn laws are.

This ruling also has nothing to do with existing state obscenity laws. What was obscene in your state last week is still obscene today. It also had nothing whatsoever to do with mandating that your local library allow access to porn over their computer systems. You're making apples and oranges arguments.

I'm addressing what the ruling and the law were about. The "backseat" image I described was illegal under that law, even if no children were involved in making it.

No, the image you described was not illegal under "that" law, and you are not addressing what the ruling and law were about.

The Statute criminalized depictions of children engaging in sexually explicit conduct defined as: actual or simulated sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, and lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area. [18U.S.C. 2256(2)]

Further, child pornography defined under CPPA as: "any visual depiction including photographs, film, video, picture, or computer or computer generated image or picture, whether made by or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means of sexually explicit conduct where visual depiction is, or appears to be a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. [18U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B)]

Ann Coulter is right on the money.

You're making apples and oranges argument

Hardly, you continually construct strawmen. We have the cartoon strawman, the 17 year olds necking in the car strawman, the jwalsh07 doesn't know apples from oranges strawman.

It gets tiresome. I'm clear on where I stand. SCOTUS created a first amendment right to virtual kiddie porn out of thin air in another power grab from the states.

You seemingly support that because the ruling aligns with your ideology, I don't because it is another blatant power grab and because I can distinguish between the freedom of speech as an unalienable right and perversion for perversions sake.

Thats it, in a nutshell.