Virtual Child Porn: Is It Illegal?

pcosta writes "Today's LA Times has an article about a Supreme Court hearing on wheteher or not 'virtual' child porn created with computer generated images is illegal. In a previous ruling, the federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed 2-1 that the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from making it a crime to generate "images of fictitious children engaged in imaginary but explicit sexual conduct". But prosecutors said this kind of pornography can whet the appetite of pedophiles, and therefore is dangerous even if no real children are involved." This will be one of the major free speech cases of the year, and I think there's no telling how the Supreme Court will decide.

Comments

What about simulated pictures of other crimes

[tedd]

Would someone familiar with the case draw a distinction between simulated child porn and simulated murder on TV or in the movies or on the internet? Simulated rape or any other crime?

.:.
:tedd

This is not silly.

[laetus]

Simulated murder in video games, movies, et. al. are not done with the intent of arousing murderous feelings in the viewer.

Simulated child pornography is done with the intent of arousing pedophilic feelings in the viewer.

The former does not seem dangerous to me. The latter is sick.
----------------------------------

Re:This is not silly.

[maraist]

Several of my Jewish friends are almost induced into a traumatic state when considering certain Nazi material. I think "making me sick" is an order of magnitude less severe... Yet, Nazi advocates in America are not Jailed (provided they do not act).

Therein lies the entire point of freedom of speech. Mob rule is based around popular self riteousness. You present an idiological danger to us, so we will stamp you out. We believe it's common sence that you committed this appauling crime so damn waiting for the trial where you have a chance at being acquited, we're going to kill you tonight!!

Music can induce us into a frenzied, less safe state for driving. Alcohol can lead us into abuse. Cocain can destroy our brain. Depictions of immoral sexuality can "whet" our desire and bring us to action.. These are all truths. (If you have value in the teachings of Christianity, (even from a non-christian point of view) the response was to pluck our your eye if it causes you to consider bad deeds). The responsibility is in the individual, and not for the society to simply remove every possible temptation.

An over-weight person that removes all food-temptation will explode and splurge when given the opportunity. Those people that allow temptations to be at hand at least have the opportunity to moderate their discipline, and make life bearable.

Sexual offenders (as far as I understand it) are tainted for life. It's their responsibility to seek help / restraint, or our responsibilty to distance them when they're caught actually doing wrong. But slowly taking away stimulous, such as moderate-level drugs, or hard-core pr0n only attacks the symptom, not the problem.

-Michael

Re:This is more important than you think

[Shadowlion]

Fantasy in troubled individuals often leads to acts.

Then how about punishing those people that commit those acts? If I drive over somebody in a car, then I am tried, convicted, and sent to prison. Yet the other, responsible drivers on the road aren't required to hand in their licenses and freedoms because one person did something stupid.

Why should this be any different? Rather than punish people for something they might do, and in the process take away some essential liberties, how about punishing people for the crimes they actually commit?

What you're saying is the equivalent of, "It's OK to punish as many innocent people as possible, so long as one of them might commit a crime in the future (possibly)."


--

Re:"whet the appetite"?

[Cederic]

I am 28; I sometimes see girls in school uniform (in the UK that tends to mean 16 or less) that are sexually attractive. I also tend to look away and not admire in the same way I would a 28 year old woman.

Girls that have gone through puberty are physically old enough to carry children; it is therefore only logical that my reproductive organs recognise this fact and express their desire in the time-honoured manner.

The fact that I do nothing about this desire is indicative of my acceptance of the artificial rules of the society that I live in - I accept that society has deemed sex with girls under the age of 16 illegal, and so I steer clear. If I'm going to be honest, I've never had sex with a girl under the age of 25..

I believe the age of consent in Holland is 12 (feel free to correct me) - so pretty much any girl I'm attracted to in Holland is legally old enough for me to have my evil way with. But I still wouldn't - I want more from a girlfriend that raw wanton sex (although I want that as well).

~Cederic

Re:Illegal

[kenf]

The ONLY reason for banning child porn is the harmful effect of creating the porn on the real children involved.

Any other porn, which represents itself as child porn but does not depict actual children, should be left alone.

Only adults, who should know what they are doing, are involved.

Re:what about anime porn?

[atrowe]

What about live action movies that depict actors over the age of 18 portraying minors in sexually explicit scenes. American Pie comes to mind. There are several nude scenes involving characters who are in high school. How would this be affected?

Virtual vs Real

[.sig]

Well, it kinda sounds familiar to me, what with all the arguments about virtual violence in video games/movies/music whatever. If it's legal to go on a shooting spree and kill hunderends of unuarmed innocents in a video game, or root for the bad guy in a particularry gruesome movie, why should this be any different?
I'll be the first to argue that it's morraly wrong, and basically sick, but it's not my place to decide what people should do with their time. As long as it's purely virtual, then no one gets hurt and it's basically a private matter up to the individual.
Now it could lead to inspiring such acts agains real children, which is a totally different matter, but it could also give the crazies what they want in a harmless matter. The question, I guess, is would the virtual be better than the real thing?
Makes me glad I'm not a parent yet, but afraid of what times will be like when that changes...

"whet the appetite"?

[OlympicSponsor]

What about porn that depicts a (fictional) rape? Should that be illegal because it'll "whet the appetite" of a rapist?

What about a movie that depicts graphic dismemberment of a corpse? It might "whet the appetite" of a serial killer. Silence of the Lambs

What about a movie that depicts a not at all graphic simple domestic homicide? It might "whet the appetite" of a spouse abuser.Almost any TV show

What about a BOOK, for crying out loud, that depicts any of these things (including fictional sex acts involving fictional children)? Lolita

These are all perfectly legal. I just don't see that the "simulated child porn is wrong" case has a leg to stand on. Therefore it'll probably pass unanimously...
--
MailOne

Not always sick

[Hairy_Potter]

For instance, in an erotica writing club I belong too, a woman's story was removed becuase it talked about her sexual experiences as a teen.

I realize it's mostly a moot point with the Slashdot crowd (hell, I was a 20 year old virgin), but if you had a sexual experience at 13, would you want the right to talk about it?