Has The Supreme Court Lost Its Mind?!?!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aristotle

Just another girl on the IRT
Originally posted by slinkybender
No one is defending kiddie porn here ( that I have seen ).
As I read this thread, some people are indeed defending the right of others to produce, market and consume *virtual* kiddie porn -- and defying anyone to draw a connection between those acts and the molestation of actual children.

Tell me: If someone buys virtual kiddie porn, believing it to be real, what then? (It's not hard to envision technology advancing to the point where that's a real possibility.) Is it really the equivalent of a rube buying a bag of fake marijuana?

Moreover, the other big thing going on in this thread is a refusal to admit that some forms of pornography do, in fact, inspire (or motivate) specific forms of behavior in some number of consumers. (Would there be quite so many men out to re-enact what they've seen in the Buttman series if there were no Buttman series? I don't think so.)
 

Aristotle

Just another girl on the IRT
You're in denial.

(Moreover, kitchen knives are made for use in the kitchen. Sometimes, they -- like any other object -- are used for other purposes.

(What purpose is kiddie porn made for? How is that purpose different when it's virtual rather than real?

(And do you really think there's any difference at all in the market for real and virtual kiddie porn?

(Or that the consumers of such things -- as a group -- don't heavily overlap with the men who commit such offenses?)

P.S. That leaves my previous point -- about how pornography can and does -- in the minds of some people -- inspire and even legitimate certain forms of behavior. (Hmmm. Maybe we could persuade the drones at the University of Michigan to do an analysis correlating the rise of "raunchy porn" with the specific acts requested of prostitutes by their customers...)
 

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
No, I don't deny that what you're saying is true. I know that there will always be those who's sick proclivities are tripped by some external stimulus. I just think that before you start outlawing stimulai, you have to do a very careful cost benefit/analysis, and not skew the results by not including the costs, or minimizing the benfits of one of the sides, or by setting up straw men to knock down to prove your side.
 
Slinky is exactly right here, and those who have dismissed this possibility need to consider the real history...but also this theoretical objection...

Obscenity is *already* illegal. Therefore it would seem that those looking to treat child porn, including virtual child porn, with distinct legislation are doing one of two things...they are either looking to add an entirely redundant law or they are looking to lower the bar as to what obscenity is when children or teens are depicted.

Now it is hard to see what the point of an entirely redundant law would be.

So it would seem that the intent is to lower the bar for obsenity in the case of child pornography. (And many of the comments here would tend to concur).

But what will it take to lower the bar and make it easier to convict consumers of child porn including virtual child porn?

The current bar for obscenity is the so called Miller test where *all 3* of these questions have to be passed:

"(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Now which of these tests is going to be made easier to pass?

In (a) asking for standards stricter than those held by the community would be undemocratic and arbitrary.

In (b) bypassing specific state laws or the requirement to be offensive also seems undemocratic and arbitrary.

So...

If the intent of anti-virtual child porn laws is not to be simply redundant, and the intent is not to be simply undemocratic and arbitrary...

Then the only remaining intent of such a law would have to be to make (in C) certain materials illegal *even if* they have "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".

Let me repeat that. We can deduce that the only reason to have these extended special anti-virtual child porn laws is the censorship of materials that also have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

It should be no surprise then that some of us worry about the preservation of works like Lolita, American Beauty, and even Romeo and Juliet.
 

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
And, as I previously stated,you're framing the debate by to state that I'm trying to say that kidiie porn, virtual of otherwise, should be sanctioned. I'd go back and reread my posts again ( i can't be held responsible for the stupidity of others, or I'd have to shut this whole board down immediately ). My point is back to the original toipic, which is simply that we shouldn't have laws which allow prosecutors overly broad ways to define things as kiddie porn, and thus demonize it and those who produce it, and that we have to be very careful in choosing exactly where we draw those lines, and that while you think we should err on the side of including more, I opt for including less.
 

Slinky Bender

The All Powerful Moderator
But let's cut to a specific instance, which I included in my earlier post:

a) Do you think that Lolita should be banned ?
b) Do you think it's possible to mount a prosecution under the law which was overturned against Lolita ?

My answer are a) no, and b) yes, and thus I think i don't want that law around any more.
 

Aristotle

Just another girl on the IRT
Originally posted by Rufus Moses
It should be no surprise then that some of us worry about the preservation of works like Lolita, American Beauty, and even Romeo and Juliet.
The real surprise -- which is no surprise -- is that the constituency for child pornography hides behind phony arguments about the likely consequences of restrictions on virtual pornography.

Films such as American Beauty or Lolita would never, ever be banned as a consequence of such laws. Anyone who really believes that is -- to put it in the most technical way -- a fool.

(BTW, we impose stricter standards than a given community might like for itself *all the time* in public policy. Why should pornography enjoy a privileged status?)

As for "overzealous prosecutors" -- We have those regardless of the specific tools they're given. And where they overreach, we have courts to knock them down. (And the courts *do* knock them down -- all the time.)

(BTW, as for slinky's objection to "demonizing" the men who make and distribute child pornography, if we won't demonize them, who's left to demonize?)
 

Aristotle

Just another girl on the IRT
P.S. It's "possible" to mount a prosecution against almost anything. The point is whether such prosecutions would be launched, and if so, whether they would be successful. People who think Hollywood films of the sort mentioned would be *successfully* prosecuted are -- in my opinion -- living in some altered state of reality. (I realize that Manhattan may qualify.)
 
Might I suggest to anyone who would like to see closure on this discussion that someone copy the actual statute at issue into this thread. I will then revise it to satisfy everyone's valid concerns.

Concretely,

Judge Crater
 
"Films such as American Beauty or Lolita would never, ever be banned as a consequence of such laws. Anyone who really believes that is -- to put it in the most technical way -- a fool. "

Why do you insist on sprinkling your posts with insults rather than addressing carefully formed arguments?

If you want to talk realpolitik the fact is that overzealous regional prosecutors, even if they get struck down at some high level, can do a great deal of harm.

The cost of going to court can be enormous, and that alone has a chilling effect on expression.

Systems that fall far short of law, such as MPAA movie ratings, use financial leverage as a blunt instrument to circumscribe what full grown adults can and cannot see.

In a different, but practically similar, realm take a look at how the Texas board of education has distorted how textbooks are written and used across the entire country.

Not everyone is rich and can afford extended court battles. Not everyone is born into influence and can pull political strings.

The citizens of the US, regardless of class or wealth, should be able to expect their civil liberties to be reflected in both law and practice at the outset, not after a long debilitating battle.

And the Court seems to agree. So insult them too Ari.
 
And again...I don't whether David Hamilton has ever been prosecuted but other artists who used their own children as nude models have been and while they *eventually* were found not guilty...their lives were devastated.
 

Aristotle

Just another girl on the IRT
The thing is, rufus, I don't think you make "carefully-formed arguments."

You make sweeping generalizations -- sprinkled with alarmist rhetoric and inapposite examples -- in an attempt to provide a "theoretical justification" for whatever it is that you yourself want to do.

I have no doubt but that Congress will rewrite this law -- consistent with its reading of the Court's objections -- and pass it again.

I have no doubt but that the MPAA will ensure that whatever law is passed has no real influence on commercial motion pictures.

I'm not particularly concerned about the court costs imposed on pornographers. Why are you?

I'm not particularly interested in seeing the vices of our system of government -- where the rich and powerful have the ability to corrupt legislation and buy their way out of (justified) legal troubles -- extended to the population at large. Why are you?

Remind me of all the important expression (political, artistic) that has been "chilled" by the prospect of court costs.

Remind me just why the defects of the Texas public school system (which are not limited to the inclusion of "creationist biology" in its textbooks) are relevant to the defense of the rights of virtual pornographers and their consumers.

Remind me why you would ever expect me not to insult the Court. (The Justices themselves do it in every dissenting opinion.)
 
If I have to remind you of all these things I despair at posting at all...because you are either not reading my posts or not comprehending them, and more posts will do no good.

My interest is *not* the protection of pornographers, although it should be said that pornography is *legal* and thus pornographers deserve the same protections all of us should enjoy.

The thing about a chilling effect is that it is self-imposed pre-censorship. So for every case one finds out about there are dozens more hidden.

I can tell you that art organizations in NYC were definitely chilled by Gullianis outbursts. I can tell you that nationally art organizations were chilled by the Maplethorp controversy. (Obvious example...a museum that simply cancelled the exhibit lest their funding be endangered). I can tell you that there is a long list of good films that were edited to avoid an X rating (which translates into losing money rather than making money) in ways that diminished the vision of the director.

The point here is that your notion that "Lolita would never be banned" either ignores the historical record of backwater prosecutors trying to make a name for themselves, or assumes that everyone has the means to fight a string of appeals in court.

The default case should be that rights are respected in law, and having to go to court to defend ones rights should be a rarity. The Court recognized that this law reversed that, and so they killed it.
 

Aristotle

Just another girl on the IRT
You may not like it, but Guiliani had every right -- under the law -- to do all he could -- through rhetoric -- to "chill" the likes of "Piss Christ."

You may not recognize it, but the taxpayer is under no particular obligation to fund the most degenerate fantasies of people passing themselves off as "artists." (This is not the Netherlands, where they do seem to have such an obligation.)

Nor are foundations obliged to make funding decisions in a social vacuum. (Indeed, many of them enjoy preferential tax status for the specific purpose of improving social conditions -- and it's hard to claim that Bobby Mapplethorpe's "private" pictures, first publicly exhibited when he was sick with AIDS as a part of some effort to celebrate the darkest corners of gay culture, improve "social conditions." Unless, of course, you meant the dress standards at the Black and White Balls.)

Pre-censorship is not "bad" per se. Every creative artist does that all the time when they impose their critical judgment on the creative process. Why should moral considerations not be a part of the process by which artists create? (Rather than immoral considerations for their adolescent shock value.)

As you say, pornography is legal. I haven't suggested it be made illegal. (And I suppose I should interpose some word of thanks to *someone* for his forebearance throughout this discussion.)

The issue here is not pornography but child pornography -- and whether a distinction should be drawn between real and virtual forms of child pornography.

You come down on the side of child pornographers -- though you're loathe to admit it. I come down, as slinky says, on the other side.
 
(1)

My point in raising all of the above examples of monetary implications having a chilling effect on free speech was simply to show that it happens. *You* said you needed to be reminded as to how that works.

In fact at various points you seemed to deny that the threat of expensive trials and appeals would have any practical effect on what everyday people would do at all. (I consider artists and consumers of media as everyday people). Now you seem to relish the fact that expression by the economically weak can be chilled by the wealth of the strong. I'll leave the fairness of this "might makes right" attitude to the reader to decide.

There is no reason to get into the merits of any of these cases because that was not the point. The point was just to show linkage between the power of money and the chilling of expression.

(2)

"You come down on the side of child pornographers -- though you're loathe to admit it."

If that is the way you want to think about it...fine. But to your way of thinking then the Supreme Court, a number of respected civil liberties organizations and internet advocacy groups, numerous legal scholars, and many many other people ALSO come down on the side of child pornographers.

It is puzzling that you see the world in such a simplistic way.

Your ongoing implication that this is all rationalization for my own personal taste is, however, just plain disgusting.* It is simply not true, and I resent having to even say it isn't true. Again...are you also saying that the majority of the Court and all of the above are ALSO pedophiles?

But to get back to this disgusting personal smear you've now posted multiple times....if you are going to let this unfair, unfounded, untrue accusation stand I am not sure we can continue this conversation in good faith.


------
* all of these statements made in direct response to me

"You make sweeping generalizations -- sprinkled with alarmist rhetoric and inapposite examples -- in an attempt to provide a "theoretical justification" for whatever it is that you yourself want to do. "

"The real surprise -- which is no surprise -- is that the constituency for child pornography hides behind phony arguments about the likely consequences of restrictions on virtual pornography. "

"From now on, when I see someone defend "virtual child pornography," I'm just going to assume that he -- in fact -- consumes the real thing. "


(edited to add footnotes)
 
RM:

Art, if it be real art, always finds an audience and always finds a way to get made. It finds its support from within itself, from the men and women who make it. Art is its own witness.

To take your argument at face value, any poet, novelist, dramatist, musician, sculptor or painter who does not obtain public funding for their work because of its subject matter would have a claim that their "rights" have been violated or "chilled."

Don't recall any artist that I ever admired complaining thusly. They just got on with their work and made do. They prevailed without support.

As for the rest of it, the only thing that is really worth saving when the smithy shed is burning down is the anvil and the smithy's tools. All the rest is rubbish in a crisis, and just not important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top