Slashdot Mirror
Free Speech, Porn And Internet Controls
dragons_flight writes: "The US Supreme Court is starting their next session, and on the docket are two cases that pit internet controls vs free speech as applied to porn. The first case will decide whether the government can force online providers to use age verification systems before allowing access to material deemed 'harmful to minors.' The second case deals with whether computer generated imitation porn can be treated with the same laws as porn involving real people (the particular case deals with child pornography). This news article discusses these and other issues before the court. Also ACLU commentary on the upcoming docket." The second of these cases was discussed before, in "Virtual Child Porn: Is It Illegal?"
The supreme court also plans to do other things like decide whether public funds may be spent to educate children at church-run schools, whether mentally retarded persons may be subject to capital punishment, and like you said how far the federal government may go in controlling Internet speech to protect children from pornography. The justices will tackle the question of child pornography on the Internet in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, No. 00-795. The court will have to determine whether Congress violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech when it passed a 1996 law making it a federal offense to post on the Internet computer-generated sexual images of children.
A coalition of photographers, moviemakers and producers of "adult" materials challenged the law, arguing that it was vague and that only pictures of actual children can be banned because only they do harm to children.
While a lower federal court sided with the Free Speech Coalition, the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that even fictitious images of children having sex help to feed the overall market for child pornography, and that prosecutors would find it difficult to prove that any image was of an actual child, as opposed to a computer-generated one.
A separate case, Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 00-1293, involves a different statute designed to protect children from seeing sexually explicit material on the World Wide Web. Passed in 1998 after the court struck down a more broadly worded version in 1997, the statute says "commercial" Web sites may not post material that is "harmful to minors" as defined by "contemporary community standards."
Diplomacy is the art of letting people have your way
...to ``protect'' children from being ``harmed'' by the sight of naked people having sex is not by passing laws.
It's by parents putting the computer in the living room.
Children are required to show ID before they can purchase a copy of ``Playboy'' or whatever because they can enter stores where pornography is sold without being accompanied by a responsible adult.
In the home, many adults have access to pornography through cable TV, videos, or copies of ``Playboy,'' or other means. Parents who don't want their children to see pornography on TV should be monitoring and restricting their children's access to TV--but they should be doing that anyway. If they can't lock out channels, they should lock up the remote with the VHS stash.
Parents who don't want children calling 1-900-LIVE-SEX should have the phone company block 900 numbers, or pay attention to their phone bills.
Parents who are really paranoid about the matter should know what kind of pornography exists in their children's friends' homes before allowing visits.
The computer should be treated no differently. You don't want your children surfing over to www.hotsexyteenlesbians.com? Fine, do it the same way you keep your children from all the rest of the pornography in the world.
And maybe, just maybe, recognize that children are also sexual beings. Talk with them about sex (in an age-appropriate manner, of course), relationships, pregnancy and parenthood, love, STDs, marriage, committment, and what it all means to you.
Or, in other words, parents being parents and legislators making laws is good; parents making laws and legislators being parents is bad.
b&;
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Morals do, like it or not, change according to culture and society.
A middle-ground needs to be found where you can feel reasonably safe, and where I can live without feeling persecuted.
Here's an example: A hundred years ago in the south it was considered immoral and an outrage for two people of different racial types to get married. The vast majority of this country thinks that view is bullshit these days. Morals do change, and I think it's a healthy thing that they do so.
Another 'moral' issue: Marriage itself is viewed differently by certain sub-cultures. Case in point, Mormons. I don't have a problem with them. Do you? Do you think they should be prevented from living their lives as they see fit?
I'm not attacking or defending, I am merely pointing out that 'morals' frequently follow from religious and cultural mores that are 1) Not shared by everyone and 2) Change with time.
But not all morals change in the US. Murder is, was and probably always will be, considered wrong and grossly unjust to the murdered.
Child pornography involving real children does disgust me and probably always will. But I also realize that that disgust arises from my culture and society, which can change.
'Fake' child pornography.. Well, on it's face, the issue doesn't appear any different than with pornography that doesn't involve children. But in the case of, say, hand-drawn animation from a certain island nation, it's just about impossible to 'tell'. Visually there isn't a lot of distinction in age differences in how many manga (that's the point right, it's an abstract, not ment as a photorealistic work) draw women. So if you were to make virtual child porn illegal, you'd probably see alot of hentai disappear, merely because the people depicted could be children.
A sticky issue, one that I don't think will be satisfactorally settled by the courts.
"Avast! Prepare for the rodgering!" THWACK! "Arrr.. me nards.."
I disagree. The legality of this should not be related to what it inspires. The question of legality should be related only to the product itself. If studies show that the vast majority of people who read book X become significantly more susceptible to comitting crimes of heinous nature, should we ban book X? Speaking from your point of view, we should. I do not believe we should. Whether a book can do this or not is moot; I my disagreement is based on principle, not practice. The people who perpetrate such repulsive acts as seduction and abuse of minors should undoubtedly be held fully accountable for their actions, but by banning what people think "inspires" them (I put this in quotes because I feel it is our duty to control ourselves, and inspiration is no excuse for responsiblity), we will erase the line that is holding intrusive censorship at bay.
Will banning child pornography affect me at all? Not in any way I can think of. However, it opens the door for censorship that will affect everyone. Censoring things because they are "indecent" or because they "make people more likely to perpetrate particular acts" is a ridiculous idea that has frightening long-term implications.
In response to: To refute your example of the effect of violent movies on children in comparison to child porn presentations on anyone (typically adult males), the majority of children who have seen violent movies will not directly act upon their exposure to the violence.
This doesn't refute my example. My point was not based on actual results. I even included a message to clarify that in parentheses! The point is that the free speech rights of the first amendment should override any effects or inherent qualities of a form of expression, as long as nothing illegal has been done in the creation of such work.
Don't get me wrong here: I think that child pornography is a disgusting idea, and that it is the moral responsibility of those who are sexually aroused by it to refrain from indulging that facet of their personality, because it is one of the few things in this world that is intrinsically evil.
For the record, the Bush administration has ruled out national ID cards. Not that I expect democrats.com to rely on facts.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
just to clarify to the other idiots who didn't reread the sentence:
"When Sweden legalized porn, [then the crimes of] rape, child molestation, and other sex crimes dropped."
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
In some european countries, there is no formal age of consent as such, e.g. (i think) in France and the Netherlands. This doesnt mean that you can go pick up a teen however, because there are laws against assault and molestion, and abuse of power, its just that they apply to all ages equally. Therefore, if a 25 year old bloke starts shagging a 12 year old, the police will be breaking down his door soon, because it is clear that he is abusing his power and behaving inapropiately. I'm not an expert on these laws but they appear to work.
:) Parents and police tend to be watchful but turn a blind eye as long as both partners are roughly the same age.
BTW when there is a formal age of consent, it tends to be 16, as in the UK and Ireland, with some countries putting the formal age as 14 or 12.
Many of my friends in the UK, both male and female, first had sex between 12 and 14, typically with someone the same age or slightly older. (mine was 17, but then i'm a geek
France has no minimum age for alcohol, and in the UK, if a parent is present, it is about 12. I should say most european kids start off having a glass of quality wine or a sip of beer with their parents at the weekly sunday dinner, at about 12 onwards, when they start becoming curious about what their parents are drinking, and this is allowed for by law. It's independent drinking or purchase of alcohol by teens that is illegal.
Likewise, for porn, in france there is no minimum age for softcore purchase I think, and for hardcore, 18.
Islam *does* promote monogamy. Go read up about why Islam gives concessions to polygamy, and why it's not promoted. Just because something is allowed, it doesn't mean something is preferred.
The purpose of having a mock-life in your head has clear evolutionary advantages. You don't need to walk into the lion's den to find out what would happen -- you can simply imagine the outcome and do something harmless, instead. (please don't quibble with the example -- it's contrived, but the point still stands). However, our ability to imagine things that haven't (or won't) happen has a secondary, and possibly inadvertent, purpose. It's mental masturbation. It stimulates the pleasure centers of our brains. Not just by thinking about sex, but by thinking about things that give us pleasure. Daydreaming, for example. In fact, the extreme extension of this unique condition explains our love of TV shows and movies (and books, for that matter).
But also, it provides us with pleasure not as a "how can I achieve this goal" function but as a "I'd like to _____ but the consequences would be too severe so I'll just imagine it, instead." I'm sure we've all been with our respective bosses at one point or another and imagined clubbing him/her over the head with a clipboard or stuffed barricuda, I mean, who hasn't?
Yeah, yeah, get to the point, right?
Many men fantasise about rape (I won't say 'most', because I don't have any studies with numbers at hand, but I'd be inclined to) for a number of reasons, one of the most pertinent being that rape provides zero cost access to the thing men desire extremely highly (I'll skip the Freudian bit about how everything boils down to sex and death, but it's well understood that men spend a lot of time trying to get laid, not just in bars, but trying to get prestige careers, fancy cars, etc.) Zero cost because there's no initial investment (everything from buying drinks and being interesting to demonstrating long-term fitness as a mate) and there's no follow-up investment (everything from cuddling when you want to sleep to being a long-term fit mate). It's what Erica Jong refers to as the "zipperless fuck".
Most male rape fantasies commit what is generally termed the "she really wanted it" genre. And this is because most men really don't want to hurt their sex partner -- they want to be nice guys and still get zero cost sex. Once again, I haven't read or conducted any studies on the matter, so this part is pure speculation, but I would be very surprised if the majority of men who have rape fantasies imagine the way it really is. That is, I doubt they imagine the pain and suffering they're inflicting.
To use a couple of examples from the media. I'm guessing for most guys it's closer to the rape scene from "The Hollow Man" -- sexy, a little scary, and mercifully blurred, as opposed to the rape scene in "Boys Don't Cry" one of the most visceral moments in American cinema, in my opinion.
My point is that men's sexual fantasy lives, especially as conditioned by the media, are of the 'bonk the boss on the head' sort of thing. Any rape support group will tell you that rape isn't about sex, it's about violence. My contention is that rape fantasies, generally speaking, are about sex and that most men find the idea of violence against women to be abhorrent.
These same arguments apply to kiddie porn. Imagining sexual relations with a child is a far cry from the reality. I think that, in order to be fair, the bifurcation between fantasy and reality needs to be carefully considered. Especially the idea that more often we fantasise so as not to do something than to do it.
DISCLAIMER: I do not advocate rape. I do not advocate molesting children. I do not advocate violence. In fact, I don't even advocate thinking. I think we were better off as monkeys. Most of this diatribe is pure flim-flammery and it's only purpose is to propose an idea that may incite thought, but I hope not, as I don't advocate thinking. Please don't send me e-mail telling me I'm a sick bastard (I already know that -- my degree was in philosophy and cognitive science). One final point -- I think the same arguments apply towards women, but I omitted them since I'm not "in-house".
Ceci n'est pas une
An article that is very similar to this one, yet a lot more informative is at TacoInspector.com.