Has The Supreme Court Lost Its Mind?!?!
- Thread starter mydesign
- Start date
- Status
Slinky -
Any law can be abused, but that doesn't in itself provide an argument against all laws. The case you're describing involves real KP and yet I doubt you'd argue that KP should be legal. It's true that misguided LE could target innocent people, but to a large extent they already can and I don't see how this is an argument against this particular law.
Any law can be abused, but that doesn't in itself provide an argument against all laws. The case you're describing involves real KP and yet I doubt you'd argue that KP should be legal. It's true that misguided LE could target innocent people, but to a large extent they already can and I don't see how this is an argument against this particular law.
I know this is an issue that arouses passions. As a dad, I know if anyone sexually abused my son, I'd want to subject them to a long, slow and painful death. Or, reminding myself of my opposition to the death penalty, within an inch of their mortal soul.
But...
There's a difference between obscenity and pornography. One's illegal all the time. Some, it depends on where you live. (Although less and less so). Child porn is always obscene, therefore illegal. This VCP ruling is actually of staggering importance, and I'm not sure exactly what to think of it. Yet.
But I think it's a bit of a red herring. The slippery slope I see referenced here has a plateau to it. It's called the SLAPS test(for social, literary, artistic, political or scientific. A little First Amendment law humor...) Established by the court in the Hustler case against Jerry Falwell (*if memory serves*) it essentially states that anything that can pass the SLAPS test is not considered obscene material.
This is the result of the famous "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it" declaration. There's no universally accepted definition of obscenity.
But there are a few things to be mindful of:
1) Slinky's example above is accurate; there are very aggressive postal inspectors and LE types who have wrongly prosecuted people based on weak set-ups as he described.
2) Ever open an email to be shocked by its contents? You too could be guilty of violating obscenity rules as currently written. Possession, in this area, is 10/10ths of the law.
I take the libertarian side in this. Strongly. I think we use anti-child porn laws to excuse real laziness on society's part.
It may be easier and safer than ever, given the Internet, to prosecute child pornographers. We just have to devote the resources to doing it. I'm with JC here; I think some kind of licensing of dangerous material (i.e. VCP) is appropriate. More appropriate would be tracking down the producers of real child porn and throwing the book at them. (i.e., years and years in jail, with a big sign on their backs telling all their fellow inmates what they're in jail for.)
Lolita is a great book and, even though it contains nary a dirty word, it does deal in an artistic way with a genuinely important topic -- lust. I think everyone ought to have to read it. It makes the argument for me that banning thoughts, art, pixar animations and any other kind of artistic expression is a waste of time and resources.
But...
There's a difference between obscenity and pornography. One's illegal all the time. Some, it depends on where you live. (Although less and less so). Child porn is always obscene, therefore illegal. This VCP ruling is actually of staggering importance, and I'm not sure exactly what to think of it. Yet.
But I think it's a bit of a red herring. The slippery slope I see referenced here has a plateau to it. It's called the SLAPS test(for social, literary, artistic, political or scientific. A little First Amendment law humor...) Established by the court in the Hustler case against Jerry Falwell (*if memory serves*) it essentially states that anything that can pass the SLAPS test is not considered obscene material.
This is the result of the famous "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it" declaration. There's no universally accepted definition of obscenity.
But there are a few things to be mindful of:
1) Slinky's example above is accurate; there are very aggressive postal inspectors and LE types who have wrongly prosecuted people based on weak set-ups as he described.
2) Ever open an email to be shocked by its contents? You too could be guilty of violating obscenity rules as currently written. Possession, in this area, is 10/10ths of the law.
I take the libertarian side in this. Strongly. I think we use anti-child porn laws to excuse real laziness on society's part.
It may be easier and safer than ever, given the Internet, to prosecute child pornographers. We just have to devote the resources to doing it. I'm with JC here; I think some kind of licensing of dangerous material (i.e. VCP) is appropriate. More appropriate would be tracking down the producers of real child porn and throwing the book at them. (i.e., years and years in jail, with a big sign on their backs telling all their fellow inmates what they're in jail for.)
Lolita is a great book and, even though it contains nary a dirty word, it does deal in an artistic way with a genuinely important topic -- lust. I think everyone ought to have to read it. It makes the argument for me that banning thoughts, art, pixar animations and any other kind of artistic expression is a waste of time and resources.
JM,
What it argues is that this is an area which there already exists a predisposition on the part of government to abuse it's "tools" ( and judging from some of the reactions right here, which is one of the more liberal spots around, shows that this subject is one which needs to be examined for the possibility of abuse ).
What it argues is that this is an area which there already exists a predisposition on the part of government to abuse it's "tools" ( and judging from some of the reactions right here, which is one of the more liberal spots around, shows that this subject is one which needs to be examined for the possibility of abuse ).
PS "Any law can be abused, but that doesn't in itself provide an argument against all laws"
I'm not arguing against "all laws". I'm arguing that when one law is currently being abused, making the newer version of that same law "looser", in order to allow those who are currently abusing what exists on the books to do so with greater impunity, is not "a good thing".
I'm not arguing against "all laws". I'm arguing that when one law is currently being abused, making the newer version of that same law "looser", in order to allow those who are currently abusing what exists on the books to do so with greater impunity, is not "a good thing".
OH - The idea of 'SLAPS' is precisely why I think that the idea that Lolita or American Beauty are in jeopardy is unfounded.
SB - OK, I think I understand now. You're arguing that present KP laws are abused by over agressive LE and prosecutors and so any widening of the scope of those laws will result in greater abuses. Is that right?
This is a very different argument from 'Freedom of Expression' arguments (obviously). You'll have to give me a minute...
SB - OK, I think I understand now. You're arguing that present KP laws are abused by over agressive LE and prosecutors and so any widening of the scope of those laws will result in greater abuses. Is that right?
This is a very different argument from 'Freedom of Expression' arguments (obviously). You'll have to give me a minute...
Those who are skeptical about slippery slope arguments should take a look around this big country to see what has already happened. As SB points out there have been many cases of men arrested for child porn where they were set up by our own government. In some cases these men were bombarded by offers for *years* before responding.
There are well documented cases of artists being arrested for taking nude pictures of their own children. And all over the country there are stories of perfectly innocent people being convicted of child abuse as part of a sort of local mass hysteria...modern day witch hunts where children are essentially brainwashed by local police to report outrages such as satanic rituals where babies are eaten or teachers having group sex with dozens of students in class in the middle of the day.
And there are lesser forms which, in a way, are even more chilling. For example Tom Sawyer has been yanked from some school libraries due to its racial language. Some high school girls can't use the web to research breast cancer in their library because the stupid filter software forced upon them sees "breast" and thinks "porn".
Censorship comes from both the right and the left. Canada, some years ago, under the influence of some of the more radical "porn is the theory, rape is the practice" feminists enacted some strict anti-porn laws. These same radical feminists were later surprised when they found publications by their "sisters" in the US being stopped at the border as "porn" under the very laws they had championed.
Remember Luther Campbell and the 2 Live Crew controversy in Florida? Here we had musicians being arrested for obscenity by over zealous local authorities looking to gain cheap political publicity...and not coincidentally leveraging latent racism in doing so. This was not so long ago.
Who here can guarantee that conservative (or liberal) zealots won't attack films like American Beauty...especially when that film is well within the terms of the (now overturned) law...either out of sincere beliefs or cynical political calculation?
When it comes to issues of free speech in this country a corollary of Murphys Law has the weight of history behind it...any expression that can be censored *will* be censored. There are too many zealots here for it to turn out any other way.
There are well documented cases of artists being arrested for taking nude pictures of their own children. And all over the country there are stories of perfectly innocent people being convicted of child abuse as part of a sort of local mass hysteria...modern day witch hunts where children are essentially brainwashed by local police to report outrages such as satanic rituals where babies are eaten or teachers having group sex with dozens of students in class in the middle of the day.
And there are lesser forms which, in a way, are even more chilling. For example Tom Sawyer has been yanked from some school libraries due to its racial language. Some high school girls can't use the web to research breast cancer in their library because the stupid filter software forced upon them sees "breast" and thinks "porn".
Censorship comes from both the right and the left. Canada, some years ago, under the influence of some of the more radical "porn is the theory, rape is the practice" feminists enacted some strict anti-porn laws. These same radical feminists were later surprised when they found publications by their "sisters" in the US being stopped at the border as "porn" under the very laws they had championed.
Remember Luther Campbell and the 2 Live Crew controversy in Florida? Here we had musicians being arrested for obscenity by over zealous local authorities looking to gain cheap political publicity...and not coincidentally leveraging latent racism in doing so. This was not so long ago.
Who here can guarantee that conservative (or liberal) zealots won't attack films like American Beauty...especially when that film is well within the terms of the (now overturned) law...either out of sincere beliefs or cynical political calculation?
When it comes to issues of free speech in this country a corollary of Murphys Law has the weight of history behind it...any expression that can be censored *will* be censored. There are too many zealots here for it to turn out any other way.
Hey Rufus, do you honestly believe that the standards for indecency have gotten tighter over the years? How many of George Carlin's seven words can you say on television? How many MTV 'banned' videos can you now watch on MTV remembers the banned videos homages? Are you arguing that lyrics have gotten less profane? When I was in middle school, you couldn't wear Bart Simpson T-shirts, and now the Simpsons are some of the most beloved characters in American culture. Can you imagine South Park airing in the 50's?
I agree that there are horrible injustices that the criminal justice system heaps upon a few anecdotal unfortunate souls. But the criminal justice system fucks people over all the time. This in itself is not an argument for eliminating legislation. It is an argument, however, for instituting better checks on criminal justice authorities - something that this country is loathe to do because it's hard to implement.
Speech should not be unrestricted; there are very good times to limit a person's expression. Ultimately, I think that modern Americans have much more liberty in terms of expression than any other group at any other time - ignorant backwater book burning of American classics aside.
We've gone over this before, but I still think that the real threat to expression is in the narrowing of focus in the mainstream media. The real danger our country faces is the homegenizing of ideas which is an inherent process in the massive media roll up that is currently taking place. There are far too few voices airing the same opinions. Rather than spend time fighting for people to have the right to make simulated JB Ramsey sex videos, I think we liberals (and conservatives, too, this is truly a bipartisan problem) would serve their own cause much better if we concentrated our efforts in insuring a divesity of opinions in media.
Anyways, as I discovered above, I'm not sure this was the slippery slope to which Slinky was referring.
I agree that there are horrible injustices that the criminal justice system heaps upon a few anecdotal unfortunate souls. But the criminal justice system fucks people over all the time. This in itself is not an argument for eliminating legislation. It is an argument, however, for instituting better checks on criminal justice authorities - something that this country is loathe to do because it's hard to implement.
Speech should not be unrestricted; there are very good times to limit a person's expression. Ultimately, I think that modern Americans have much more liberty in terms of expression than any other group at any other time - ignorant backwater book burning of American classics aside.
We've gone over this before, but I still think that the real threat to expression is in the narrowing of focus in the mainstream media. The real danger our country faces is the homegenizing of ideas which is an inherent process in the massive media roll up that is currently taking place. There are far too few voices airing the same opinions. Rather than spend time fighting for people to have the right to make simulated JB Ramsey sex videos, I think we liberals (and conservatives, too, this is truly a bipartisan problem) would serve their own cause much better if we concentrated our efforts in insuring a divesity of opinions in media.
Anyways, as I discovered above, I'm not sure this was the slippery slope to which Slinky was referring.
"Is that right? "
That's right. Unfortunately, the drug of choice of some prosecutors and politicians is numbers of arrests, etc. So, they try to use wider and wider nets to garner more "accomplishements". If they can't get the results they want, they just use a bigger hammer. If you can't hit the squirrel with the .22 you have 2 choices: learn to shoot better, or buy a shotgun. But there ain't much of the squirrel, or the branch he was sittin' on left after you use the latter. But if all you care about is putting up "got another one", you tend to ignore how many trees you "got" along with the squirrels.
That's right. Unfortunately, the drug of choice of some prosecutors and politicians is numbers of arrests, etc. So, they try to use wider and wider nets to garner more "accomplishements". If they can't get the results they want, they just use a bigger hammer. If you can't hit the squirrel with the .22 you have 2 choices: learn to shoot better, or buy a shotgun. But there ain't much of the squirrel, or the branch he was sittin' on left after you use the latter. But if all you care about is putting up "got another one", you tend to ignore how many trees you "got" along with the squirrels.
When I wrote about the laziness of society above, I had originally written "the laziness of law enforcement". Thinking about it, and following on SB's remarks above, LE is what I meant.
The problem isn't pictures of abuse. Pictures of abuse are simply evidence of abuse. Target the abuse. All this discussion around virtual child porn gives the lie to the debate over child porn.
Take the example of snuff films. We see simulated death in movies all the time. What's the big deal with seeing a snuff film? It's real. What's the solution to snuff films? Use them as evidence to convict people who have committed horrific crimes.
Same with kiddie porn.
The problem isn't pictures of abuse. Pictures of abuse are simply evidence of abuse. Target the abuse. All this discussion around virtual child porn gives the lie to the debate over child porn.
Take the example of snuff films. We see simulated death in movies all the time. What's the big deal with seeing a snuff film? It's real. What's the solution to snuff films? Use them as evidence to convict people who have committed horrific crimes.
Same with kiddie porn.
(Side note - if by snuff film one means "a film of an actual murder (possibly including rape and/or torture) made for the purpose of distribution" then in fact there are no known cases of snuff films. So called snuff films are either (1) films where the murder is faked or (2) films of actual crimes which were never intended for distribution (i.e. made by serial killers or the like for their own sick pleasures).
Usually when this comes up numerous people will beg to differ. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong (not that I want there to be snuff films!!!) but please offer evidence beyond "I saw one, and I know it was for real". For example, cite an actual criminal conviction by name.)
Usually when this comes up numerous people will beg to differ. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong (not that I want there to be snuff films!!!) but please offer evidence beyond "I saw one, and I know it was for real". For example, cite an actual criminal conviction by name.)
occasionalhobbyist ... sorry for stepping on your point ... the argument definitely stands and it is a good one ... just as a snuff film would be evidence of a crime, child porn would also be evidence of a crime. And just as in the case of a *fake* snuff film there is no murder victim thus no crime, in the case of a *fake* (aka virtual) child porn film there is no abuse victim thus no crime.
Damn you and your logical traps.
But that's fine... Let's substitute:
JM - I think what you've raised is a valid critique of pedophiles, but not of VCP itself or its intended use.
Which I suppose, in a way, is rufus's argument.
So I'll agree to use the same ruler with the understanding that ruler's measure a continuous quantity. In either case we are measuring the potential good of an object (Graphical representations of simulated children having sex or laws aimed at curbing the activity of child molesters) with the potential bad of the object (child molestation or misuse of laws to target innocent individuals). My instinct is that the misuse of CP laws is somewhat rare compared with their succesfull use in curbing pedophilic activity. Moreover, I'd guess that whatever benefits of virtual child porn (I can't think of any... perhaps someone would like to help me out) are greatly outweighed by its tendency to promote the molestation of children.
But that's fine... Let's substitute:
JM - I think what you've raised is a valid critique of pedophiles, but not of VCP itself or its intended use.
Which I suppose, in a way, is rufus's argument.
So I'll agree to use the same ruler with the understanding that ruler's measure a continuous quantity. In either case we are measuring the potential good of an object (Graphical representations of simulated children having sex or laws aimed at curbing the activity of child molesters) with the potential bad of the object (child molestation or misuse of laws to target innocent individuals). My instinct is that the misuse of CP laws is somewhat rare compared with their succesfull use in curbing pedophilic activity. Moreover, I'd guess that whatever benefits of virtual child porn (I can't think of any... perhaps someone would like to help me out) are greatly outweighed by its tendency to promote the molestation of children.
Virtues of virtual kiddie porn?
Interview aid for molested and abused children?
Nah. Too suggestive and leading. Should probably stick to the dolls that are normally used for such purposes.
Interview aid for those who would like to obtain positions where they can molest and abuse children? Just put the candidates in a dark room with a little time on their hands and hook them up and see if they get aroused.
Yup. That could be a real positive use of virtual kiddie porn. Sort out all the prospective bad apples right quick from those desiring to be cops, priests, rabbis, ministers, boy scout leaders, teachers, school aids, bus drivers, etc.
Could even become a useful means whereby single mothers could better interview prospective boyfriends on their tendencies.
Still think those buying virtual kiddie porn for their own viewing pleasure should get the sign of the fat old man being sodomized by Uncle Wiggly on their front lawns for their neighbors to stare at.
Has a certain colorful flair to it.
Interview aid for molested and abused children?
Nah. Too suggestive and leading. Should probably stick to the dolls that are normally used for such purposes.
Interview aid for those who would like to obtain positions where they can molest and abuse children? Just put the candidates in a dark room with a little time on their hands and hook them up and see if they get aroused.
Yup. That could be a real positive use of virtual kiddie porn. Sort out all the prospective bad apples right quick from those desiring to be cops, priests, rabbis, ministers, boy scout leaders, teachers, school aids, bus drivers, etc.
Could even become a useful means whereby single mothers could better interview prospective boyfriends on their tendencies.
Still think those buying virtual kiddie porn for their own viewing pleasure should get the sign of the fat old man being sodomized by Uncle Wiggly on their front lawns for their neighbors to stare at.
Has a certain colorful flair to it.
My argument is that if to any extent free speach is curtailed because there are any cases anywhere where some overzealous persecutor ( heh ) uses these laws against some speach that he/she doesn't like, and these laws allow that to occur, then there is in fact a great ( and immeasurable ) loss to our society as a whole. History has shown time and time again that there are those who wish to limit the free speach of others, and it is very oftewn if not almost always using similar arguments as here.
I'll point out that the many of the same people who want these laws to go through would not give a second thought to banning the speach that goes on here on a dialy basis also ( and they would give the same reasons ).
I'm not arguing that there aren't any costs to free speach. There's always some great reason for curtailing someone else's speach. You just have to figure out when "they will come for you". I think you mis-frame the argument by stating "the potential good of an object (Graphical representations of simulated children having sex or laws aimed at curbing the activity of child molesters...", because you leave out the real potential "good", which is living in a society where unpopular speach is tolerated. In addition, I think you way underestimate the amount of prosectuions which have occured in this country's history where any laws have been used to curtail unpopular activites/speach. It wasn't very long ago that Maplethorpe exhibits were being shut down. I know you think this is different, because it's "kiddie porn", but I don't - and not because i believe people should be allowed to make/distribute/etc. kiddie porn - but because it's the same exact people doing the button pushing. It's not some "new set" of reasonable, open minded folks, who just want to stamp out kiddie porn. It's the same group who thinks homosexuals should be segregated in some leper colony ( along with fornicators like us here ). Thoses who think they "need" laws like this to prosicute CP ( as opposed to the rather stringent ones which were already on the books, BTW ), aren't looking only for guys who are child molesters. they don't need laws like this to do that. they have their eyes on something else........and it's us.
I'll point out that the many of the same people who want these laws to go through would not give a second thought to banning the speach that goes on here on a dialy basis also ( and they would give the same reasons ).
I'm not arguing that there aren't any costs to free speach. There's always some great reason for curtailing someone else's speach. You just have to figure out when "they will come for you". I think you mis-frame the argument by stating "the potential good of an object (Graphical representations of simulated children having sex or laws aimed at curbing the activity of child molesters...", because you leave out the real potential "good", which is living in a society where unpopular speach is tolerated. In addition, I think you way underestimate the amount of prosectuions which have occured in this country's history where any laws have been used to curtail unpopular activites/speach. It wasn't very long ago that Maplethorpe exhibits were being shut down. I know you think this is different, because it's "kiddie porn", but I don't - and not because i believe people should be allowed to make/distribute/etc. kiddie porn - but because it's the same exact people doing the button pushing. It's not some "new set" of reasonable, open minded folks, who just want to stamp out kiddie porn. It's the same group who thinks homosexuals should be segregated in some leper colony ( along with fornicators like us here ). Thoses who think they "need" laws like this to prosicute CP ( as opposed to the rather stringent ones which were already on the books, BTW ), aren't looking only for guys who are child molesters. they don't need laws like this to do that. they have their eyes on something else........and it's us.
Or at least some of us.
One problem with slinky's simulacrum of a logical argument is that -- despite all that -- we live in a country where speech is more free -- less restricted -- than in any other society in human history.
Yet AT THE SAME TIME we live in a society that is, by all previous norms, debauched beyond human understanding.
And despite all this, some tiny minority persistently argues that they are oppressed, or might be oppressed, or (I sometimes suspect) would like to be oppressed.
Maybe oppression isn't all it's cracked up to be.
For some of us.
(Smooches.)
One problem with slinky's simulacrum of a logical argument is that -- despite all that -- we live in a country where speech is more free -- less restricted -- than in any other society in human history.
Yet AT THE SAME TIME we live in a society that is, by all previous norms, debauched beyond human understanding.
And despite all this, some tiny minority persistently argues that they are oppressed, or might be oppressed, or (I sometimes suspect) would like to be oppressed.
Maybe oppression isn't all it's cracked up to be.
For some of us.
(Smooches.)
- Status