Supreme Court strikes down anti-child pornography law
<a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/041602dnnatscotuschildporn.7e2a6e19.html" target="_blank">Requisite linkages.</a>
The Supreme Court has ruled that computer generated child pornography is not child pornography.
From the article:
"Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban on virtual child pornography Tuesday, ruling that the First Amendment protects pornography or other sexual images that only appear to depict real children engaged in sex."
As sensitive as the subject of child pornography is, I think it was a good move on the Supreme Court's part.
(And please, before anyone goes on a freaked-out tirade about child pornography being the devil, read the article.)
[edit]
This is for BRussell:
"The Clinton and Bush administrations defended the law in court, claiming it "helps to stamp out the market for child pornography involving real children."
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
The Supreme Court has ruled that computer generated child pornography is not child pornography.
From the article:
"Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban on virtual child pornography Tuesday, ruling that the First Amendment protects pornography or other sexual images that only appear to depict real children engaged in sex."
As sensitive as the subject of child pornography is, I think it was a good move on the Supreme Court's part.
(And please, before anyone goes on a freaked-out tirade about child pornography being the devil, read the article.)
[edit]
This is for BRussell:
"The Clinton and Bush administrations defended the law in court, claiming it "helps to stamp out the market for child pornography involving real children."
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
Comments
And yes, I think the reason that child porn is illegal is because of the general view that children are unable to really give consent to sexual activities.
Otherwise, no harm, no foul. It might be utterly vile, but it's not illegal.
<strong>Maybe an even more theoretical question: is computer-generated pornography actually pornography?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think anyone has ever argued that drawn or painted or retouched-photo pornography isn't pornography, so why would CG porn be any different?
Personally, if it prevents the abuse and exploitation of human beings (especially children) I'm all for it. I don't think anyone really believes that the porn industry is going away - they've found pornographic cartoons painted on the walls in Roman ruins. If it can go virtual, great.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
NEVER post without re-reading what you've said, kids, you'll just look stupid like Uncle Groverat just did.
--
To me the crux of the argument would be the potential to maybe steer some people who would harm children away from that path a bit to where they could merely CGI-render themselves hurting children. They are sick bastards, still, but at least they aren't hurting anyone.
Anyway, good decision on the SC's part.
<strong>The problem with prohibiting out of court settlements is that the victim may have to wait a very long time for any damages to be paid. The rich can afford to spend years/decades in court especially when accused of something heinous like child molesting.</strong><hr></blockquote>
thats a problems init of itself....(sp?)--you get the drift... you shouldn't be able to apeal forever...
<strong>The Law that really needs to be passed in its stead is one the prohibits out of court settlements on Child Molestation/Rape cases. I don't think the rich should be allowed to buy themselves out of possible convictions.</strong><hr></blockquote>To what are you referring here?
<strong>To what are you referring here?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Many famous accused Child Molestation offenders have settle out of court(Michael Jackson and R Kelly are two recent cases).
This is wrong. In Domestic Violence cases the Victim does not have the right to cancel charge. We owe it to our children to make sure that their pain does not go unpunished. I do not favor payouts simply because you cannot put a price on a childs head in this scenario(and many others).
If my child was Molested I don't want a nickel from the offender...I want them in jail.
<strong>Many famous accused Child Molestation offenders have settle out of court(Michael Jackson and R Kelly are two recent cases).
This is wrong. In Domestic Violence cases the Victim does not have the right to cancel charge.</strong><hr></blockquote>But those are civil cases, brought by one party against another. You can't as an individual put another individual in prison - only the gov't can do that. Civil cases brought by individuals are legally separate from criminal charges brought by the gov't.
Why wasn't Michael Jackson ever charged with criminal conduct? Because there wasn't a case. But someone, maybe honestly, believed he did it, and so sued him for his money.
Anyway, it is illegal to take money from someone in exchange for remaining silent on criminal charges.