Supreme Court strikes down anti-child pornography law

groverat

<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>

agent302

I guess the main question regarding the decision is, is child pornography in and of itself bad, or is it bad because it forces children to do things?

groverat

Maybe an even more theoretical question: is computer-generated pornography actually pornography?



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.

amorph

The only argument against the pornography industry that has held any weight with the courts is its abuse of women and children, e.g. the star of Deep Throat being forced to do her scenes at gunpoint.



Otherwise, no harm, no foul. It might be utterly vile, but it's not illegal.

amorph

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:

<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>

groverat

All right, so it was a stupid question that I didn't put much thought into.



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.

hmurchison

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. My thoughts on this are CG porn is fine with the added protections mentioned above. People need to know that if you mess with children...your arse is going to jail to be someones girlfriend.

glurx

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.

paul

[quote]Originally posted by glurx:

<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...

hmurchison

So beit. I'm not interested in letting Child Molesters off the hook. They need to know that they will be prosecuted to the FULL extent of the law. NO BUYOUTS. That's the only way you will protect children. What's money going to do? Maybe pay for counseling but I don't not favor paying monetary fines as an acceptable judgement in many cases.

brussell

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

<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?

hmurchison

[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

<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.

groverat

I'm with you on that, h-murch.

brussell

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

<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.