Supreme Court strikes down child porn law

[Richard Dickson]

Surprised this hasn't been brought up yet:
<a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/kpix/20020416/lo/2992_1.html" target="_blank">http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/kpix/20020416/lo/2992_1.html</a>
The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a child pornography law that was protested by a diverse group that included digital artists along with online sex sites.

Justices ruled Tuesday that so-called "virtual" child porn is protected by the first amendment. The law banned any image of a child involved in a sex act -- whether it was a real child, a computer-generated image, or even a film clip where an adult actor stood in for a child. But the Supreme Court said that it was too broad, and limited freedom of speech.

"The justification for prohibiting child pornography has to do with the abuse that the actors suffer. Then there is no reason to punish the creation of images that don't involve any actual children," said Professor Brad Joondeph of the Santa Clara University Law School. "You are bordering on merely punishing ideas ... The digitized image is nothing more than the images in the creator's head."

But a digital image could prompt crimes against real children, according to Santa Clara Assistant District Attorney Chuck Gillingham.

"There's a substantial portion of the population that uses the Internet, and uses the trade, for sexual gratification toward children," he said.

In fact, 90% of the child sex crime cases Gillingham prosecutes in Santa Clara County involve child pornography. He says Tuesday's ruling may put the burden on prosecutors to prove images used for evidence are those of real children. However, Gilligham does not see the ruling as a total victory for child pornographers. He says he can still charge them with violating state obscenity laws.The way I understand it, the reason the Court struck down the law is that, under this law, you could technically prosecute someone for showing Lolita or Traffic, since both feature scenes of legal-age actors portraying underage characters having sex. Hell, you could even get in trouble for staging Romeo and Juliet and portraying the characters as the teenagers Shakespeare meant them to be (and Zefferelli's and Luhrman's versions could conceivably be labelled as pornography).

Anyway, saw a press conference by Ashcroft regarding the decision and he did not look happy.

[Chavez]

Of course Ashcroft didn't look happy - that fucking Supreme Court backed that damn Bill of Rights again!

Which, IMO, is a good thing; law enforcement has shown that once you give them an inch, they impound and auction a mile. While it's tough to support anything that makes life easier for those who would deal in kiddie porn, it's tougher still to start encroaching the first amendment (first in number and in importance, I believe).

[DJ Dylan]

Well,im glad it wasnt passed.

[Kronos]

The way I understand it, the reason the Court struck down the law is that, under this law, you could technically prosecute someone for showing Lolita or Traffic, since both feature scenes of legal-age actors portraying underage characters having sex. Hell, you could even get in trouble for staging Romeo and Juliet and portraying the characters as the teenagers Shakespeare meant them to be (and Zefferelli's and Luhrman's versions could conceivably be labelled as pornography). Thin argument at best(and those are always the tired examples).

But what happens when a movie is available online that is the visual quality of a Final Fantasy which portrays adults with 7-year-olds? Perfectly ok? Well, when you consider you have to have had models for those images I feel this might be reconsidered.

[Nick Luskmonster]

Honestly, I think the examples may seem a little thin, but they do work.

My opinion is that they have done the right thing. You describe a Final Fantasy like film that would depict 7 year olds. That's fine as an example of the opposite, but I think that example is a world away. They need to limit the amount of power someone can have in determining what the content is. I mean, if any depiction can be defined simply by a set of numbers and not by its actual content, we're in trouble.

People that do not want, nor have the capacity or predisposition to look at art objectively, should not be allowed to blindly say "nope, that's porn, its banned."

Fights like this are not much different than the ever-popular war on drugs. No one wants to fight the difficult battles. My feeling is that if you're going to go after child porn, start at the top and work you're way down. But I tend to see rampant hypocracy and cowardice behind almost all attempts to legislate morality.

When I was growing up in South Carolina one of my cousins got married at 14. It was legal. A couple of loopholes, but its possible. I don't really keep in touch with my family anymore.

[Kronos]

To begin any discussion you have to have the germaine(germane, correctly spelled) terms <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary" target="_blank">defined</a>.
Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: -fE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE, CARVE
Date: circa 1864
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction &lt;the pornography of violence&gt;
- por·no·graph·ic /"por-n&-'gra-fik/ adjective
- por·no·graph·i·cal·ly /-fi-k(&-)lE/ adverb
At this point I don't see where Shakepeare's Romeo And Juliet could ever come under that definition.

To use the images of children to depict erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement is illegal, is it not?

It is the intent of a pornographer to illicit an arousal response.

To use images of children -even if those images are created inside a computer, the sticking point- to illicit an arousal response is child pornography. Child pornogrpahy is illegal, or it used to be. Apparently no longer.

Oh, and in case you didn't already know, it's really really wrong.

[DaveB]

Dictionary definitions are one thing, practical usage of the term by the courts is something different entirely.

Romeo and Juliet may escape the labeling (although the actual bearing of teen flesh in the Zeffirelli version might be seen as unnecessary for the plot, thus only included for titillation, but I digress), but Lolita and Ulysses ran into some difficulties with the term "pornography," if memory serves.

I think these lines will always be a little ill-defined, since we'll never REALLY know if Nabokov intended for us to be turned on a little.

And this definition also gives me some trouble, as far as what is bannable by these anti-pornography guidelines:

"the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction &lt;the pornography of violence&gt;"

So, what if we take your example of a computer-generated child with an adult, and, for this situation, let's assume no real models WERE used... what if this is done not for titillation, but IS meant to arouse a 'quick intense emotional reaction' of disgust. If done well, couldn't this be about the strongest ANTI-molestation statement you could make?

[Kronos]

So, what if we take your example of a computer-generated child with an adult, and, for this situation, let's assume no real models WERE used... what if this is done not for titillation, but IS meant to arouse a 'quick intense emotional reaction' of disgust. If done well, couldn't this be about the strongest ANTI-molestation statement you could make? Good point, if only in a documentary-type context. If in a commercial context I'd say it flies outside the realm of decency at best.

You see folks, I am no prude. I've been to porn conventions. Met many porn stars. I'm not against any sort of adult porn...even though there are some really degenerate things out there.

Put a child in it and it becomes sick. I'm talking full-on penetration porn. Not Lolita.

[imported_Adam Warren]

Germaine: A German, living in Maine.

[Kronos]

Oopsy...germane.

[Ben (formally Ned Fats)]

"Put a child in it and it becomes sick. I'm talking full-on penetration porn. Not Lolita."

Guess what? That's still illegal.

[Kronos]

Guess what? That's still illegal. Justices ruled Tuesday that so-called "virtual" child porn is protected by the first amendment.

[imported_Slartibartfast]

While creating "virtual" child porn is disgusting and damn immoral, I still believe that the Supreme Court made the right decision.

It isn't real children, and using "fake" children isn't harming anybody except those that create such awful crap. Those people have the same right as anyone else to create what they believe to be an "art," though how anyone could call child porn art is beyond me.

However, the main reason I am slightly happy about this ruling is that it shows positive signs towards the future of the internet as well. Considering that it passed pretty easily, this this is a good sign that the Internet will always be a haven for free speech and expression, and that makes me happy.

Bye.

[Kronos]

Anything goes, eh? As long as someone can display it, well it's fine.

What a vile fucking World.

Sure, everybody seems to be perfectly pleased with the Supreme Court now don't they? Hmmmm...wasn't too long ago that you very same people who are praising this decision were deriding the Court for being in the pockets of what you termed the "Religious Right".

Sure, go around saying that money doesn't equal free speech. But child porn in any form is a-ok.

Bunch of fucking hypocrites.

[imported_Adam Warren]

Allowing written or 'virtual' child pronography not only validates the pornographers work, it encourages the sort perversion which these works display. I would rather sacrifice some of my Percieved rights than allow child pronographers to indulge themselves. While the law in question may have been too sweeping(I'm not familiar with it), the issue remains pertinent, and one should realize that Serious restrictions on these people Must be put into place. The internet has created a pervasive problem which must be addressed.

[Ben (formally Ned Fats)]

kronos:
Anything goes, eh? As long as someone can display it, well it's fine.

What a vile fucking World.

Sure, everybody seems to be perfectly pleased with the Supreme Court now don't they? Hmmmm...wasn't too long ago that you very same people who are praising this decision were deriding the Court for being in the pockets of what you termed the "Religious Right".

Sure, go around saying that money doesn't equal free speech. But child porn in any form is a-ok.

Bunch of fucking hypocrites."wasn't too long ago that you very same people who are praising this decision were deriding the Court for being in the pockets of what you termed the "Religious Right"."

I dont remember deriding the courts...could you tell me who was?

As for the vile world shit, you are FUCKING A correct. The fact that people are doing this is vile, the fact the first amendment is being protected is not. I also would support a more specific law, it just seems this one is too broad.

You know what doesnt make sense to me? Why should most people who consider themselves liberal give an inch when it comes to freedom of speech when most people who consider themselves won't give an inch when it comes to the right to bear arms?

[DaveB]

I must admit, you've lost me on the religious right comparison, kronos. Could you elaborate?

And I'd say, if the desired effect is disgust, it should make no difference whether the usage falls within commercial or documentary style contexts. One of the strongest anti-drug statements I've ever seen was Requiem for a Dream, which is strictly non-documentary, and its strength may have come directly from its explicitness.

[Kronos]

This is the same Supreme Court who according to many -including many right here at CHUD Ned- claimed they "selected" President Bush. During that time many were touting the "Right-Wing Supreme Court" and "in the pants of the Religious Right" yadda yadda yadda.

Ergo, if the Supreme Court was so damned Right-Wing and Religious Right we wouldn't be seeing this decision, would we?

Therefore, can those on the left ever give up their rhetoric about the Supreme Court being a tool of the Right? I submit they must. This is a balanced court.

And as far as the comparisons to the Second Amendment go: The attacks on the Second Amendment are much more overt than the perceived attacks on the First Amendment. In fact, when cases regarding things such as Child Pornography it isn't the First Amendment which is under any sort of attack. Cannot people see this? Why don't people see that it's in the interest of protecting children from the evils of pedophilia.

I've never heard ANYBODY utter words such as "repealing the First Amendment". Whereas I have heard the words "we must repeal the Second Amendment or at least change it". [don't ask me where because I don't have Lexis/Nexis to do the audio research]

Attacks on the Second Amendment are out in the open. There are people right here on this messageboard who would gleefully take away your right to own firearms, a Second Amendment guarantee.

Pornography featuring your children, who have perhaps been secretly modeled for a computer-generated movie, isn't guaranteed by any Amendment.

Or am I a lone voice here?

[Kronos]

You know what doesnt make sense to me? Why should most people who consider themselves liberal give an inch when it comes to freedom of speech when most people who consider themselves[conservative] won't give an inch when it comes to the right to bear arms?
This is the basis for most political battles isn't it? This is the attitude that frightens me. The Second Amendment is a guarantee given by the Constitution that you and I, liberal or conservative, black or white, male or female, may keep and bear arms. That this right cannot be taken away from you.

It's not a right-left thing. It's a Constitution thing. You seem to think that the Constution was set up like this:
"Ok, we'll give this wacky First Amendment away to those who might be "liberal" in a couple hundred years as long as those who are "conservative" in a couple hundred years can keep guns.

I think you'll find that there is no abridgment of speech in this country. And if a law was passed that kept child porn from being expanded into the digital genre you'd still find no abridgement of your freedom to speak against the Government.

Yet if a law was passed that gave the Government the power to take away your guns this would be a clear abridgement of the Second Amendment.

It isn't a right/left thing.

But again, I'm a lone voice.

[Richard Dickson]

The thing to remember is that this ruling does not mean the Supreme Court is in favor of child pornography. It simply felt that the language of this particular law was so broad that it could lead to abuses of the law and was unconstitutional.

[devincf]

You are turning into a real partisan lunatic Kronos. I am so glad I don't frequent these boards anymore.

[Ben (formally Ned Fats)]

George W. Bush-"There ought to be limits to freedom"

You talk about people not trying to abridge freedom of speech....

Say what you want man. I said in my post that I would support a more specific law, you ignored that, whatever.

[Kronos]

Real? Always.
Partisan? What's wrong with that?
Lunatic? No more than anybody else.

[imported_Adam Warren]

Kronos, to some extent I agree with you. Did you read my post?

I think the issue of child pornography requires serious attention. While this particular law may have been too sweeping—poorly concieved, perhaps—the problem hasn't gone away. The dropping of this law doesn't kill the issue. And that should be the soul of this discourse: how child pornography should be dealt with. Not partisan interpretations of how one percieves left and right-wingers would deal with this issue, or had a hand in it.

If you don't think this law is a good one, what do You suggest the Supreme Court do about Child Pornography on the net. Turn a blind eye? because addressing the issue might affect rights you percieve yourself to posess?

And if you recognize the problem must be dealt with, how so? would rights a functioning society takes for granted be comprimised?

[DaveB]

Adam Warren:
I think the issue of child pornography requires serious attention. While this particular law may have been too sweeping—poorly concieved, perhaps—the problem hasn't gone away. The dropping of this law doesn't kill the issue. And that should be the soul of this discourse: how child pornography should be dealt with. Not partisan interpretations of how one percieves left and right-wingers would deal with this issue, or had a hand in it.
Agreed. None of us here (hopefully) are "pro-child pornography," whether our political bents are liberal or conservative. The problem is that when any kind of legislation involving "pornography" is introduced, there's a potentially huge risk of abuse, as the ideas of "pornography" and "obscenity" are very subjective.

Should there be laws against child pornography? Absolutely. And there are.

However, this particular law would leave a lot open for interpretation and might result in penalties for those who did not intend to create "pornography." I think we're all better off not supporting such a law until a better law can be created that will sufficiently punish the truly guilty and that can't be misused to punish the innocent.

[Jacob Singer]

The desire to have sex with an underage person, no matter how repugnant we may find it, is not illegal, nor can it be made illegal. Acting on that desire is what anti-child-pornography laws are all about.

Child pornography laws exist to protect real children, not virtual ones.

[Kronos]

would rights a functioning society takes for granted be comprimised?
I seriously doubt they'd be compromised. After all, it's not porn we're talking about. It's child porn.

Use the proper definition of pornography and you'll find the intent of a movie such as Lolita isn't under that definition.

Any reasonable person could see that. Sure, disagree with the content, but it's not porn.

[Kronos]

Jacob Singer:
The desire to have sex with an underage person, no matter how repugnant we may find it, is not illegal, nor can it be made illegal. Acting on that desire is what anti-child-pornography laws are all about.

Child pornography laws exist to protect real children, not virtual ones.So, you're saying that you cannot legislate what's in people's thoughts or hearts?

Think very very hard about the answer.

[Jacob Singer]

Just make your point, we don't need the dramatics.

wink

[DaveB]

kronos:
Use the proper definition of pornography and you'll find the intent of a movie such as Lolita isn't under that definition.

Any reasonable person could see that. Sure, disagree with the content, but it's not porn.1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

Actually, I was thinking more the book Lolita than the movie. Nabokov's use of the language in conveying Humbert's thoughts could ABSOLUTELY be seen by some as depicting sexual excitement, though not encouraging it from the overall context. This link makes a pretty good case for the language being titillating (perhaps even intending to cause sexual excitement), but necessarily so, in context:

<a href="http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/nabokov/coutur1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/nabokov/coutur1.htm</a>

Thus, a reasonable person very well could find excerpts of Lolita to be sexually exciting. Unfortunately, there are probably "reasonable" people who would look no further than this to see that the narrator is unreliable, etc.

It's such a slippery slope when you start trying to legislate offensiveness.

[Kronos]

Jacob Singer:
Just make your point, we don't need the dramatics.

wink No. I like it when double standards show their own ugly heads.

[Mad Man Mundt]

I knew a guy in college who had a t-shirt of a gay 3-way between Bart Simpson, Calvin of Calvin and Hobbes, and one of the boys from Family Circus. Is that child porn?

[DJ Dylan]

WHO LOVES CHILD PORN??? WE DO!!!!! LOL. JK. No, Child porn is bad... very very very bad.

[Chavez]

devilf:
You are turning into a real partisan lunatic Kronos. I am so glad I don't frequent these boards anymore.So are we.

[Seahawk]

DJ Dylan:
WHO LOVES CHILD PORN??? WE DO!!!!! LOL. JK. No, Child porn is bad... very very very bad.DJ, not to be a straighedge little idiot, but don't joke about it.

Please.

[Capt. Eucalyptus]

kronos:
[QUOTE] You know what doesnt make sense to
But again, I'm a lone voice.No. You're not. I blieve that adult porn (as bad as I think it is) should be covered by the First Amenment. But Child Porn, virtual or otherwise, should not. As far as bringing Lolita, R&J, etc. into the argument, those things aren't porn. I really think we all know what porn is and what it ain't. Be real.

[DaveB]

capteucalyptus (Scott Roche):
As far as bringing Lolita, R&J, etc. into the argument, those things aren't porn. I really think we all know what porn is and what it ain't. Be real.Ah. The "I know it when I see it argument." Yeah, I'd love to give the courts that kind of power.

As mentioned before, works like Lolita and Ulysses HAVE run into problems, pornography-wise. Apparently, we do NOT all know what pornography is when we see it.

I think maybe you should answer Mr. Mundt's question, since that might shed some light on what is child pornography in your eyes.