|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 188 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 100 of 188:
| 
Apr 22 00:28 UTC 2002 |
re #96:
> Scot free of what?
Thoughtcrime, of course.. How will society function if we are no longer
allowed to punish wrong thinking?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 101 of 188:
|
Apr 22 00:30 UTC 2002 |
View hidden response.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 102 of 188:
|
Apr 22 04:03 UTC 2002 |
There's a related issue that is a real concern, though. A producer of child
pornography could well try to claim that he was only _producing_ virtual
kiddie porn. But IIRC, the Supreme Court addressed that issue in their
statement.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 103 of 188:
|
Apr 22 04:19 UTC 2002 |
It probably isn't hard for an expert to tell, at least if they're using image
modification of some sort.
|
brighn
|
|
response 104 of 188:
|
Apr 22 04:32 UTC 2002 |
Writing for the Majority, Justice Kennedy writes:
"To avoid the force of this objection, the Government would have us read the
CPPA not as a measure suppressing speech but as a law shifting the burden to
the accused to prove the speech is lawful. ... The Government raises serious
constitutional difficulties by seeking to impose on the defendant the burden
of proving his speech is not unlawful. An affirmative defense applies only
after prosecution has begun, and the speaker must himself prove, on pain of
a felony conviction, that his conduct falls within the affirmative defense.
In cases under the CPPA, the evidentiary burden is not trivial. Where the
defendant is not the producer of the work, he may have no way of establishing
the identity, or even the existence, of the actors."
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.html
IANAL, but that sounds like the only possible exploitable loophole is
rewriting the law so that alleged *producers* of the work have to prove their
innocence. He further writes:
"Even if an affirmative defense can save a statute from First Amendment
challenge, here the defense is incomplete and insufficient, even on its own
terms. It allows persons to be convicted in some instances where they can
prove children were not exploited in the production. A defendant charged with
possessing, as opposed to distributing, proscribed works may not defend on
the ground that the film depicts only adult actors."
This is the most interesting passage to me, because it suggests that the SC
might be getting impatient with the varying and confusing laws for sex crimes
in the country:
"Under the CPPA, images are prohibited so long as the persons appear to be
under 18 years of age. 18 U.S.C. 2256(1). This is higher than the legal age
for marriage in many States, as well as the age at which persons may consent
to sexual relations."
bolstered by what I've been saying all along:
"The statute proscribes the visual depiction of an ideathat of teenagers
engaging in sexual activitythat is a fact of modern society and has been a
theme in art and literature throughout the ages."
and
"Pictures of young children engaged in certain acts might be obscene where
similar depictions of adults, or perhaps even older adolescents, would not."
In other words, in Kennedy's opinion, if it's obscene, there are laws for taht
already, and if it's not obscene, it's up to the Govt to prove it involves
actual children.
|
brighn
|
|
response 105 of 188:
|
Apr 22 04:42 UTC 2002 |
I read Thomas' opinion, and while I agree with him that American Beauty
doesn't*exactly* depict "actual" sexually explicit conduct, it does contain
at least one manipulated shot that gets as close to being sexually explicit
without getting there (the CPPA includes lascivious display of the genitals;
Tora Birch was 17 when the movie was released, and there's one shot where you
see her breasts, although it's obvious to anyone who's paying attention that
they're stunt breasts, being displayed lasciviously to the neighbor boy...
incidentally, Mena Suvari was 100% legal when the movie was released, and
presumably when it was shot [she was 20 at release time]).
|
gull
|
|
response 106 of 188:
|
Apr 22 13:43 UTC 2002 |
Re #95: No one's arguing it's a good thing, just that it shouldn't be
illegal. If we're going to ban everything that might be a hangup for
someone, we'd better pass laws against latex and leather pretty soon, too.
|
jp2
|
|
response 107 of 188:
|
Apr 22 14:57 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 108 of 188:
|
Apr 22 15:01 UTC 2002 |
Getting more serious about #95, the second sentence contradicts the first one.
If I'm a pedophile -- that is, I don't have a preference for children, but
I *need* children to get off sexually -- then isn't it a much better thing
that I should masturbate to digitally enhanced pictures and stories, than I
should go find some six-year-olds and rape them? Which children, precisely,
am I injuring by masturbating in my closed bedroom with my windows drawn to
pictures that never involved injuring real children?
The only situation -- and I'm curious if there's a way that Congress can frame
this, or if there are even current laws about it -- is the one I already
described in "American Pie": Putting the head of a minor on the naked body
of an adult, and enhancing it so it looks real. I could see how such a picture
might bring harm to the minor, but then, I could also see how taking Britny
Spear's head and putting it on a naked body could upset Britny, and that's
done with great frequency. I'm really not sure if children should get "extra"
protection from such acts, or if there just needs to be laws in general about
it.
|
brighn
|
|
response 109 of 188:
|
Apr 22 15:01 UTC 2002 |
#107> Oh, baby, how would we get off then?
|
jp2
|
|
response 110 of 188:
|
Apr 22 16:19 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
morwen
|
|
response 111 of 188:
|
Apr 22 16:22 UTC 2002 |
resp:108 Okay, Paul, I get your point. All I am saying is, wouldn't
it be a good thing to catch these people and put them in therapy or
something BEFORE they hurt real kids? One action leads to another
action. If "sicko" is using virtual porn, won't he eventually "need"
to use a real child? I hope you will pardon any paranoia that may be
implied in this statement. I was sexually abused as a child.
|
jp2
|
|
response 112 of 188:
|
Apr 22 16:28 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 113 of 188:
|
Apr 22 16:50 UTC 2002 |
...but in your case, Jamie, can we really say that it was literacy that hurt
you?
|
jp2
|
|
response 114 of 188:
|
Apr 22 17:24 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 115 of 188:
|
Apr 22 18:37 UTC 2002 |
#111> I saw "Frailty" the other day. I enjoyed it. I have no intention of
hacking people up with an axe. There's also some argument to be made that,
if it were legal and even borderline acceptable for people to consume
fabricated kiddie porn, it might do society some good, as well, because those
people may be more inclined to SEEK counselling. I'm not sure... does anybody
have any stats on the likelihood of people to seek treatment for gambling or
drugs in areas where such is legal vs. illegal? The problem with seeking help
for something that's illegal is, you may not trust your counselor to turn you
in, especially for those crimes where they're OBLIGED to turn you in (and I
believe producing child pornography qualifies).
Yes, continued exposure to media stimuli may inure people to the stimuli and
lead the weak of will to experiment to experiment. That's a tough call, and
the water is muddy.
I'd also like to explore what it is about society that leads people to commit
sex crimes against children. I've never denied my own occasional attraction
to pre-teens, but touch one? Gah. Never. And that's not because of the law,
that's because of my own moral values (yes, I disagree with the state's age
of consent, but still... there IS such a thing as too young).
Anyway, one of my outlets has been adult women dressed as schoolgirls. It's
a common enough fantasy, skimming through the porn sites. I feel it allows
a vent, and the CDDA would have closed that vent. Which is why I'm glad with
the SC's decision.
|
keesan
|
|
response 116 of 188:
|
Apr 22 18:39 UTC 2002 |
Kids watch lots of virtual violence on TV - should they be jailed?
|
oval
|
|
response 117 of 188:
|
Apr 22 19:50 UTC 2002 |
the weird thing is, is that it seems that this whole thing is really about
internet censorship in generally, and the child porn angle is just there so
people can't argue it. this seems to get more debate than the catholic church
sex scandal involving tons of children that were *actually* abused.
|
slynne
|
|
response 118 of 188:
|
Apr 22 20:22 UTC 2002 |
I think the child porn issue gets more debate because hardly anyone
will publicly admit that they think it is ok for priests to molest
children but lots of people will admit to looking at porn or will take
a position similar to mine (which is that porn is icky, child porn even
more so but it shouldnt be illegal just because I dont like it)
|
void
|
|
response 119 of 188:
|
Apr 22 21:05 UTC 2002 |
Again, in the words of George Carlin, "Show me someone who's at home
watching porn and waxing his carrot, and I'll show you someone who's not
out causing any trouble."
|
russ
|
|
response 120 of 188:
|
Apr 22 23:37 UTC 2002 |
I wonder which is worse for children and society:
1.) People making pornographic stills and sequences on their
computers with "skins" with child-like features, or
2.) People dressing up young children as adults and showing
them off as sex objects which they could not be except
to pedophiles (ex. JonBenet Ramsey's parents).
Only #2 involves actual children, but Congress seems to be after #1 instead.
|
brighn
|
|
response 121 of 188:
|
Apr 23 03:04 UTC 2002 |
I thought Thomas' claim that American Beauty didn't fall under the CPPA
sounded fishy, and it occurred to me why. While one might argue that American
Beauty doesn't have any overt sexual acts involving minors, the other American
movie that year -- American Pie -- does (the foreign exchange student fondles
herself extensively why many high schoolers, and at least one middle schooler,
look on and drool). So much for Thomas' arguments...
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 122 of 188:
|
Apr 23 07:17 UTC 2002 |
resp:121 are we talking studio release or unrated version?
|
brighn
|
|
response 123 of 188:
|
Apr 23 16:21 UTC 2002 |
I have the Unrated, I think, but I don't remember the studio release being
much different. She's lying on the bed with the Perfect 10 magazine, playing
with her breasts, and there are various shots of people watching via the
Internet, including the jock (the same guy who was in Dude? Where's My Car?)
and his little brother.
|
jep
|
|
response 124 of 188:
|
Apr 23 16:30 UTC 2002 |
re #120: It's a widespread activity, dressing your kids up as adults.
People have their 5 year old's ears pierced, and send their 12 year
olds to school with bare midriffs and other "sexy" apparel and allow
them piercings from belly buttons to tongues. I see all kinds of this
sort of stuff in the elementary school which my kids attend, and at
which I volunteer. I don't approve, but am not railing against it.
I'd rather ask, where and how would you draw the line?
I'm not against artificial production of pictures of children doing
awful things, though I'm not in favor of it either. I want to know how
to tell what is real and what isn't.
I'm sure we are all against real kids being used to produce pornography
and being photographed doing obviously horrible things. The attorney
general, like him or not, has a good point. If artificial production
is legal, and indistinguishable from real production, how do you stop
the real production, where real kids are being hurt?
The Constitution is extremely important. So are kids. There can be
conflicts between the two. Real kids sometimes *are* used for
producing child pornography. Would anyone really want to just accept
that as part of the price of having the 1st Amendment? I am not
comfortable with that. I want better answers than that.
|