Has The Supreme Court Lost Its Mind?!?!

[Rufus Moses]

What I meant is more specific than the position that is being questioned here...to quote myself:

"(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. "

In other words we don't make descriptions or depictions of crimes illegal in any other case. To make this more pointed in the form of a rhetorical question...

Should we also make the depiction of murdering teenagers and other minors illegal?

 

[Rufus Moses]

Here is what Justice Kennedy wrote on this very matter in the majority opinion:

"The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it."

 

[mydesign]

RF,

after browsing the actual opinion, I too believe the Court has ruled properly in this case, though I do not regret my hot-blooded reaction that first began this discussion.

 

[joel]

I too will side with those of libertarian leaning in this matter, that the role of law is to protect people from each other, NOT to regulate what thoughts and feelings are proper. If you want an authority telling you what to think and feel, go join a religion.

Are the consumers of artificial kid porn sick? In my opinion, a resounding YES, but there is no justification for making it a crime to be mentally sick, its only a crime when what you do is harming others.

However, as an exercise in how far we will go to adhere to this principle, I offer the following scenario: Anyone ever see those REALDOLLS? They cost like $3000 and are amazingly lifelike. What if some company offered a kid version. This is to me the creepiest thing imaginable. Would we (those siding with me that this is not the laws jurisdiction) stick to principle here. There is probably limit in everyone where principles break down and gut feeling takes over. I'm a father so its even tougher.

The argument that these products may encourage bad behaviour can be countered with a reverse argument: How do you know that use of artificial kid porn products may not provide an outlet of release for those kookies who may otherwise be driven to pedophilic acts .


SLINKYBENDER: If I broke a rule with the above paragraphs, please delete with my apology.

 

[mydesign]

Originally posted by joel
Are the consumers of artificial kid porn sick? In my opinion, a resounding YES, but there is no justification for making it a crime to be mentally sick, its only a crime when what you do is harming others.

Yet they can still lock you up in an asylum and take you off the street if you are mentally sick and a danger to society

 

[joel]

Originally posted by mydesign


Yet they can still lock you up in an asylum and take you off the street if you are mentally sick and a danger to society

But if you have no history of endangering anyone, where is the crime?

 

[mydesign]

No crime, you wouldn't be guilty of any crime, the state would just "take care" of you. (like the movies with the guys in the padded room with the straight jacket)

 

[joel]

Originally posted by mydesign
No crime, you wouldn't be guilty of any crime, the state would just "take care" of you. (like the movies with the guys in the padded room with the straight jacket)

Sort of like that last scene in the movie AMADEUS, all those naked guys in cages.

 

[justme]

Well how about it. How many of you free expression at any cost guys would feel OK if Real Dolls released an Olson Twins ca Full House model?

Or if the true measure of a crime is marginal harm, then why not allow the free distribution of kiddie porn when the subjects are already dead or later as adults have agreed to its release?

 

[Rufus Moses]

The question isn't whether one feels good about virtual child pornography, the question is should it be legal.

In a free society there are going to be things that are legal that you may not feel so good about.

 

[Geezy Muldoon]

Since the government has the right to regulate and license the purchase of certain types of merchandise when it so chooses in its infinite wisdom (e.g., guns, etc.), why not make it a requirement that every purchaser of virtual kiddie porn items obtain a license and fulfill certain conditions?

As a condition of being licensed to buy virtual kiddie porn items, all purchasers would have to agree to the posting on their front lawns of impressively large can-see-them-going-by-in- either-direction-at-50 mph signs of a fat old toothless man in a grimy tee shirt and baseball cap being sodomized by Uncle Wiggly.

Such signs would appear just as soon as your internet order was placed. Make you a real hit at the local Fourth of July block party.

I don't see any problem with this in my reading of the Constitution.

 

[justme]

That sounds like a great compromise to me.

(There are plenty of things that are illegal to own -like certain munitions- that are only illegal on their potential to hurt people)

 

[Geezy Muldoon]

Precisely. Kiddie porn, by definition, should be viewed as dangerous merchandise whose only possible purpose is to aid its purchasers in experiencing sexual pleasure through contemplation of power over a helpless child.

From a child's standpoint, this is simply one of the most soul destroying things that can be experienced by them. Makes them dangerous, in turn, and produces generations of tremendously unhappy people afterwards who are often prone to repeat the drama.

Judge Crater (who is probably one of the few posters on this board to ever actually have watched an Olson twin movie, being the father of a seven and a half year old girl and a two and a half year old son whose latest words of wisdom heard from the back of the car are as follows:
"Daddy is a bad man.")

 

[Rufus Moses]

JC ... your thinking (and the thinking of others here) continues to confuse information and thoughts with physical objects and actions. They are not the same in fact or in law.

In this society we treat information and thoughts differently than we treat physical objects and actions. A car or a gun as a physical object has safety obligations attached to it. Because a physical object can do physical harm. But one doesn't need a license to *read about* driving a car or shooting a gun. This is because the mental image of a gun or a car, by itself, has never and will never kill anyone.

It is only when thoughts and information become physically instantiated into actual objects and actions that any direct physical result can occur. And that instantiation, the move from thoughts and information to physical objects and actions, is always a choice made by an individual. And we can always hold that individual responsible for making the choice to take an action. And we can always do this *without* having to legislate or say anything about the relative legality of thoughts and information.

So there is no need to make thoughts and information illegal...any actual harm done can be legislated and punished on the basis of physical acts.

The response might be "well we don't *have* to make such thoughts and information illegal, but it might prevent harm if we do".

But that logic opens a Pandora's box of trouble...as the Court in this case rightly pointed out. Just in the realm of child pornography by the current law the producers of various versions of Romeo and Juliet, or American Beauty, or Lolita, or any number of legitimate art works would be criminalized.

And beyond child pornography, what happens if we consider this would be principle of "prevention" (and the link between media and actions is *highly* contested) as applied to other crimes?

Should it be illegal to depict not only child abuse/sex, but also the murder of minors?

Should it be illegal to depict the rape or murder of adults? Might not that prevent future wrongs in the same way?

In fact, why not make it illegal to depict *any* illegal act...in order to prevent such acts in the future?

This isn't just a case of getting the wording of the law right. This is a case of confused principles.

 

[justme]

It should be pointed out that not all non-virtual pictures of naked kids are illegal (otherwise my parents, and many others, would be child pornographers). The courts generally judge whether or not a particular image is pornography by its intended use and whether or not it has a credible non-erotic use. It should also be pointed out that the court tends to err on the side of freedom of expression when making its rulings. I'm sure many people on this board (including myself) would consider the work of David Hamilton to be mostly sold to disgusting men jacking off at the image of pubescent girls. But you can still continue to buy his books at Amazon or B&N. Why? Because the courts have ruled that there is 'artistic' value in his photographs and that they can be apreciated in ways that aren't necessarily prurient.

That's why this whole paranoia about American Beauty and the like is so ridiculous. If citizens can't get real life photos of real life 13 year olds that more than likely are the masterbatory fantasies for real life pedophiles taken out of circulation, how does one suppose that they will be able to prevent media that uses adults to portray sexual situations whose intended audience is clearly not supposed to be getting their rocks off?

No, what the law would be used for is to strengthen cases against suspected pedophiles. It would allow prosecutors to make better cases against adults with rows of art photography books and a hard drive full of cut and paste images of explicit sex between virtual kids.

 

[Slinky Bender]

"No, what the law would be used for is to strengthen cases against suspected pedophiles."

And that's a very slippery slope. Once som eprosecutor someplace decides someone is "guilty of something" and therefore will use "any means necessary" to "bring them down", you really have to be careful about giving them too many clubs to use.

Not having anything to do with this particualr subject, I've seen too often prosecutors using certain tools at their disposal based on this same "type" of reasoning. And knowing how certain branches of government have already prosecuted certain cases regarding this topic, I'm very scared of giving powers under that assumption that they won't overstep certain bounds.

 

[justme]

You can 'slippery slope' slippery slope arguments in much the way you can deconstruct deconstructionism, so before I buy them I usually need a demonstrated clear path to begin slipping. I just don't see one here.

I understand the fears of giving prosecutors too many tools, and I certainly believe that we should investigate crimes, not people. Still, a startlingly high percentage of child molestation and pedophilia goes unpunished because of lack of evidence, so I think that currently we are in a situation where the government is under armed in its efforts to stop these rather heinous crimes.

 

[Slinky Bender]

Guy goes to porn site and orders non-kiddie porn from someone who, unbeknownst to him, also ( under another business name ) sells kiddie porn. This guy sells a list of customers to The United State Postal Service Postal Inspectors Office ( who pretend to be another kiddie porn distributor ), including this guy, since they get paid by the name. The USPS sends the first guy, in a plain brown envelope, kiddie porn unsolicited. It arrives, and he doesn't open it, and just tosses it on his stack of "to open later". The next day, he is arrested for possession of kiddie porn ( actual case, and fairly many similar cases ).

 

[Geezy Muldoon]

Rufous:

Just as I would never support laws making the works of DeSade, Joyce, Miller, Burroughs or Ginsberg illegal, I would never support any law that would make movies or books such as American Beauty or Lolita illegal.

Books, movies, pictures, etc., however, dealing with pedophila, sex between and among children and adults and/or violence against children that are not primarily motivated by artistic, philosophical and scientific concerns I would ban.

All that being said, other solutions (e.g., heightened standard of proof of intent) are required to prevent the abusive prosecutions of innocent possesors of kiddie porn.

 

[Slinky Bender]

Did JC just French RM ?