Has The Supreme Court Lost Its Mind?!?!

[justme]

mydesign - actually what's at issue is whether a fully naked 18 year old on her knees with some older gentleman's cock sticking out of her mouth who is depicting a 13 year old on her knees with some older gentleman's cock sticking out of her mouth should be allowed or not.

Oz - We leave fuzzy lines in law all the time, and we do it because it's impossible to nail those laws down. If the legal system were really about black & white, then the entire court system could be replaced by computers.

 

[mydesign]

Originally posted by Ozzy
i hate to rant on this subject but how can anyone make laws like the one the SC just struck down and yet justify that NAMBLA is allowed exist and to operate a website because they're exercising their freedom of speech?

NAMBLA is an organization/association/club, etc. ... We all have a first amendment right to associate, hence we also have the KKK and other neo-nazi organizations.

As long as the organziation does not distribute Kiddie porn it is repugnant but not in violation of that law.

 

[justme]

What precisely did Tipper do to rock? Do you think that parental advisory stickers made a difference one way or another to the artist? to his sales?

Don't get me wrong at the time I was 12 and pissed, but now it seems like much ado about nothing (unless of course you buy your music from Wal Mart).

 

[Ozzy]

JM.....

actually it backfired in a way because since the stickers record sales have gone thru the roof. now that could also be attributed to the CD market. however..... the Wal-Mart point you made is more what i was thinking of. living in NYC you can get anything anywhere... but for the poor guy who lives in the sticks and has no sam goody's and only a Wal-Mart might think differently.

it wasn't what they got out of it..... it was what they WANTED to get out of it. IMHO.... tipper burning those records on the steps on the capital is what cost her husband the white house*. i know several staunch dems who didn't vote for al because his wife reminded them of a nazi germany 1940.


*....i don't want anyone to think that Al (the creator of the internet) didn't help with a bit of his own stupidity.

 

[capitan]

child porn...legal issures

It's OMHO, but this is a VERY complex issue that is being discussed here.

I personally believe and INSIST, that any involvement with minors/
children, should be absolutely illegal, and should carry the maximum legal penalties...even for first time offenders.

I would suggest that this involves not only "real images of real
children", but also and including ANY images of children/minors,
whether those images are real or CREATED, by any means of
choice or endeavor.

We, as adults, in a concious thinking society, have to draw the
line somewhere. I say this: LET US NOT INVOLVE MINORS IN ANY
SEXUAL ACT, IMPLIED, REAL OR OTHERWISE... INCLUDING SEXUAL ACTS OR DEPICTIONS OF SEXUAL ACTS, and/or SEXUAL ACTS OF AN ARTIFICIALLY GENERATED NATURE, REGUARDLESS OF HOW THE ACT OR IMAGE OF THE ACT WAS OR IS GENERATED.

I realize that what I am suggesting, may in fact, be in conflict with
other laws, rules, or definitions, as stated by the US supreme
court and the constitution of this country... the United States of
America. The greatest country in the world...IMO.

But, I absolutely believe and hold to this premise: we have to
protect and hold innocent, the lives of our young ones...those
members of our society who's legal age is under the age of 18.

All of us as ADULTS, have the privilege and responsibility, to engage in sexual acts and encounters. We will have to live with
whatever we have done. But the point here is: it is our conscious
decision as ADULTS. We MUST draw the line here with a cronological age restriction.

My last statement on this matter is: Let's keep the sex games
open ONLY to adults...whaterver age that is...18 or 21... otherwise, where are we headed as a society?

As Paul Simon said may years ago......We're just slip slidden away.

 

[daengman]

Originally posted by mydesign


Whether liberal or conservative, it is easy to argue that fully clothed 13-y.o. children in a movie about a lolita topic is not child porn, while it would be hard to argue that a fully naked 13-y.o. on her knees with some older gentleman's cock sticking out of her mouth is also not child porn.

just a small matter of language, but unless the name of the girl on her knees is Lorena Bobbit, wouldn't the older gentleman's cock be sticking "in" her mouth

 

[Rufus Moses]

It is easy to climb up on the soap box and point fingers and preach when a single good is held higher than all others. It is more difficult to live in a world where multiple goods are sometimes at odds with each other. Unfortunately that is the kind of world we live in.

It is, first of all, the height of presumption, and a classic case of ad hominem argumentation, to accuse person A who defends person B's right of (socially highly questionable) expression of all the wrongs person B is guilty of.

For example, I defend the rights of nazi's to protest. I do this because the measure of a free society is not the degree to which it allows the expression of popular ideas...but rather the degree to which it defends the rights of those with unpopular ideas. I am *not* a nazi...and that is exactly why I feel they must be heard.

Sex with children is about as unpopular idea as one can imagine. And nobody here, least of all me, is defending any form of actual child/adult sexuality. That is not the issue.

The issue is whether adults have the right to access materials which may depict such events in such a way that no child was involved in their creation.
(And keep in mind this isn't just "kiddie porn"...it could include people in their teens...and all manner of legitimate artistic expression...not just Lolita but also Romeo and Juliet).

The only argument that has been offered as to why this should be illegal is that it will result in real children being hurt later down the line.

That is both (1) speculation and (2) *not* a sufficient reason to make something illegal.

(1) speculation

As a matter of science the causes for pedophilia are not understood. The notion that exposure to pornography has any *casual* relationship to later behavior is sheer speculation.

As a matter of rationality saying convicted pedophiles have child pornography in their closets is "proof" is the fallacy of correlation being mistaken for cause and effect. It makes no more sense to say child porn caused them to later molest children than it does to say that molesting children caused them later to collect child porn.

And it ignores the huge number of people who have some form of ******** pornography who never ever harm actual minors.

(2) legal insufficiency

In this country we criminalize actions not thoughts, and thank God for that.

As a formal argument the notion that information about illegal activity X must be censored to prevent people from being tempted to participate is a radically foreign notion. This kind of logic is not applied in any other criminal realm, *including* other kinds of crimes against children.

If someone molests a child that is already a crime. If someone helps to *plan* the molestation of a child, that is also already a crime. If someone makes, distributes, or owns pornography that involved actual children, that is also already a crime.

There are plenty of laws to apply to those that abuse children.

So in fact the only people this law would *uniquely* address are those who have NOT participated in actual child abuse.

Even those who hold the protection of children as a trump card that defeats all other considerations should question whether this is the best use of resources to that end.

 

[jras]

age is relative

Originally posted by capitan
My last statement on this matter is: Let's keep the sex games
open ONLY to adults...whatever age that is...18 or 21... otherwise, where are we headed as a society?

cap-
the arbitrary nature of what constitutes "legal age" is part of the problem. Sexual maturation in both sexes does not occur according to some fixed timetable.
I guess we better burn all those Catholic girl uniforms too.

 

[Kimmie]

Dont any of you have kids?

As a mother, I find any kind of sexually explicit material direct at or involving children disgusting, and anyone engaging in or even watching any sort of child pornography should have their dicks cut off ( if it is a man) in a public execution.

Screw the laws, this is about what is morally right. No one should have any right to view this sort of material, and anyone who supports the idea that someone should, is just as perverted as the person sitting there jerking of watching a naked 6 year old.

Imagine your 6 or 16 year old daughter or son being used on the web on a sex site..

Dont want to imagine that do you?

 

[Rufus Moses]

Kimmie...please read more carefully...nobody here is defending porn that uses real kids...

we are defending porn that uses adults playing dress up or porn that is computer generated or porn that in any case *doesn't* have kids in it...it just *appears* to have kids in it via some kind of cinema trickery...

 

[Kimmie]

Rufus..

If someone is getting off on what "appears" to be a child it is still DISGUSTING, IMMORAL AND SICK!!


I still stand by what I said.. If anyone defends someones right to view it they are just as disgusting, immoral and sick..

 

[Ozzy]

i just wanted to state that i am NOT defending porn that uses adults playing dress up or kiddie porn that is computer generated or porn that in any case *doesn't* have kids in it...it just *appears* to have kids in it via some kind of cinema trickery...


i'm defending the rights that would have been taken away and those innocents who would have faced prosecution because the brief that was written was very wrongly worded and thats why the court killed it. if it were re-written with different wording than i'd approve of it in a nano-second.




i wish ari (king of all links) could be so kind and try and find and post the brief. i heard it discussed earlier today and there's a paragraph that states that " any movie that has even one instance on someone (even an adult) depicting a minor in any sexual matter would be deemed child pornography" i'm not sure of the exact text, but thats the gist of it. that would make all the examples i posted about be labled "child porn". the brief needed to be re written and i'm sure in no time at all it will and it will eventually sail right thru the court with their full blessing in the very near future.

 

[Aristotle]

ozzy --

Go here:

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2001/october.html#00-795

And scroll down to:

John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. The Free Speech Coalition, et al.

The pertinent links are below.

 

[Rufus Moses]

Kimmie...one of the great and problematic things about this country is that people have the right to be disgusting, immoral and sick..as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

I hope you can understand that defending the constitution is different than defending pedophiles...thank goodness the Court (at least in this case) does...


Ozzy...sorry if by implication I lumped you into a class you are not comfortable with....it would be interesting to see what kind of wording you would accept. I say this because I don't think this is a small matter of proper wording...

 

[Kimmie]

I understand that Rufus, but I cant fathom the idea of this being allowed or condoned.. Even if it is virtual..

This subject and anything related to this is very very personal to me, so maybe I will just avoid this thread from here on out...

 

[Ozzy]

rufus... don't sweat it...no implications were made or caused. i just have my own reasons for being on the courts side today.


ari... thanks for the links. i'll go thru them in the morning and find that section i was quoting earlier, before i go any further on this i'd prefer to read the whole thing anyway. but most of what i said was based on that one passage i posted about. seems that part of the brief was the topic of discussion on a couple of news programs today concerning the rights of mainstream film makers, artists and advertizing agencies, and how they would be effected by this.

 

[mydesign]

Originally posted by Rufus Moses
The only argument that has been offered as to why this should be illegal is that it will result in real children being hurt later down the line.

That is both (1) speculation and (2) *not* a sufficient reason to make something illegal.

Rufus,

I can agree with most of what you are saying, but in terms of whether perceived, yet not proven future harm is sufficient reason to make something illegal.....well ilicit drugs are illegal. driving over the speed limit is illegal and in NY driving without a seatbelt worn is also illegal. These are all laws made to protect against potential future harm...yet they are the law.

 

[daengman]

Originally posted by mydesign


I can agree with most of what you are saying, but in terms of whether perceived, yet not proven future harm is sufficient reason to make something illegal.....well ilicit drugs are illegal. driving over the speed limit is illegal and in NY driving without a seatbelt worn is also illegal. These are all laws made to protect against potential future harm...yet they are the law.

MYdesign

While I am not in favor of that type of material, your argument is flawed.
The things you mentioned, while the banning of them does protect from future harm, they were banned based on a vast past history (at the time of the banning) of producing harm. The problem is that no one has irrefutably shown that this material
"a priori" in and of itself will result in harm. And, due to the nature of these studies, this may be very difficult to do.

 

[SkellyChamp]

This is of course a very complicated and emotional issue. While I can intellectually agree with the concept that the symbol and proof of a true democracy is not just the right we each share to advocate those views that are popular but to be able to accept and support the right of someone else to stand up and advocate at the top of their lungs that which you have and would stand up and advocate against at the top of your lungs. Oddly enough the statement Michael Douglas gave in the final press conference in The American President was an excellent expression of that view. Also said something like the symbol of your country can not just be a flag, but also the right of a citizen to stand up and burn that flag.

Few issues are clear cut and almost no issue is as emotionally packed as the issue of child pornography. I totally understand where Kimmie (Yankee fan though she be) is coming from. As the father of two (boy and girl), for me the issue of any supportable causal link between child pornography (real or virtual) and pedophilia and/or molestation doesn't have to be proven. To protect my kids I don't feel I have that luxury (even if as pointed about by others it's something that possbily can't be proven). When children are concerned I would rather err on the side of too much regulation than too little.

I also don't believe that it is absolutely necessary to lump Romeo and Juliet and American Beauty, for example, into the same category as some of the examples of child pornography given above. The law is more often than not, especially in matters such as obscenity, about the grey areas and not bright line rules. To be perfectly frank, I'd rather take the risk of losing something or many things that were not meant to covered than of one child being molested, abused or injured. Having children does change your priorities.


Sorry for any disjointed thoughts but I was trying to do the usual ten things at once.

 

[mydesign]

Originally posted by daengman


MYdesign

While I am not in favor of that type of material, your argument is flawed.
The things you mentioned, while the banning of them does protect from future harm, they were banned based on a vast past history (at the time of the banning) of producing harm. The problem is that no one has irrefutably shown that this material
"a priori" in and of itself will result in harm. And, due to the nature of these studies, this may be very difficult to do.

Daengman

While I am not in favor of that type of material, your argument is flawed.

What vast past history of producing harm was decision to outlaw marijuana based on? Excessive hazard from the munchies? Do you even know what year marijuana was outlawed in?

How about 55 mile/hr speed limit? What vast past history of producing harm justified that? Only reason I remember was that Prez Carter said it would save gas. By the way, in case you haven't noticed, the federal 55 mph ceiling on interstate highways was lifted a few years ago, therefore the harms of the past will be back to haunt us.


P.S.- in case you didn't realize I was not making an argument I was attacking one of the premises of RM's argument.