Slashdot Mirror
'Virtual' Child Porn Act Ruled Unconstitutional
wiredog writes "The United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, has found the Child Pornography Prevention Act to be unconstitutionally vague and far-reaching." You might read the Act. There were a number of cases challenging the constitutionality of the Act; I believe three Appeals courts eventually upheld it, and one ruled it unconstitutional, guaranteeing that the Supreme Court would take one of the challenges for review. A summary of the decision is available, and see that pages for links to the majority opinion and dissenting opinions.
crime has been committed before you can get a conviction ?
Sure. The point of the (now overturned law) was to turn the act of creating child porn, even simulated, into a crime. Since regular child porn is already illegal, the idea here was to extend it. (For example, photoshopping a child's head onto the picture of a naked grownup would be illegal even though no child was harmed.)
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
This should become part of our lexicon, just like RTFM... If you would take the time to read the article, along with the Court's decision, you would have noticed that the law that was struck down was done so because it was too broad, not because we are trying to protect child molesters/pornographers/pedophiles. The Court struck the law because of the law's ambiguity and too-broad definitions of what is "child pornography".... This was actually a victory for free speech and freedom of expression. Please do not misunderstand me or my posting here; child pornographers/pedophiles should all be eradicated from the face of the earth by the most horrific/painful means possible, but that is not what this is about....
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
If people can use virtual child porn they wont need to use real children, this will protect alot of children.
The point of child pornography laws is to keep the porn industry from exploiting children.
No children are exploited in virtual porn, so it should be legal, its harmless and if anything protects children in the long run.
The arguement people who are against virtual porn will use is "Its bad to feed the perverts any form of child pornography"
problem is, these people will always exsist, and its better for them to get off to fake child porn, than REAL child porn.
Wrong = Exploiting children
However nothing is wrong with virtual child porn or
any other form of expression as long as no one is harmed
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Unfortunately, a lot of what you are saying is a flawed argument in response to LordNimon.
Someone asked if he was a psychologist to push his expertise.
I'll up it a little. My best friend is a psychiatrist (big distinction between the two) and he would tell you that LordNimon is absolutely correct about taking obsessions to the "next level." He's spoken to me several times about these kind of behaviors. Also, you'll find extremely few dissenting opinions on his answer among the medical community.
There have been plenty of case studies to back this up. I just can't point you in that direction, and my friend is not a
Schools are not laws.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Parents are required by law to send their children to school. (Home-schooling is the exception, and the National Educators' Association is trying to get it outlawed.) School boards pass "regulations" under which teachers are required to report certain offenses to the police. The police are required by law to investigate the complaints. Seems like "law" to me.
But in any case, here's your non-school example:
Laws are supposed to be specific in order to restrict police activity, not to require it.
Nope, no sig
-- Peter McWilliams, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do
I looked for the original report, but could not find it online. If I do, I'll post the link here.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
That's right, you feel like it would be the opposite because you're not a rapist. No matter how sexually aroused you might be, you're not a violent person, and would never do such a thing. The only reason you'd ever imagine it is because you want sex, not violence. If you can get your sex from porn, that will do nicely for you.
Previous poster still has a totally valid point. For other people, that do have a desire for violence, watching a lot of porn will change their view of what is acceptable behavior. If you begin fucked in the head, porn can absolutely fuck you worse in the head.
Don't get me wrong. I watch porn all the time. I don't think I'm playing with fire at all. I know the difference between fantasy and reality. I was fortunate, though. Nobody ever raped me when I was a kid, so those borders are pretty clear. The people that *did* get molested as children are much more likely to do similar things as adults, and kiddie porn will certainly keep them thinking about it.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
That's not exactly the real significance of the Sharpe case. I'll just fill in the details for the non-Canadian types.
r no graphy.html
This Sharpe guy was, frankly, a really sick bastard. He was charged with posession of child pornography, specifically filmed material and written material. He was found guilty on the charges related to film material, and justifiably so.
The Supreme Court basically found that the simple possession of the material in question was constitutionally protected, so long as the acts depicted in the photographs were not real. Furthermore, they held that the written material, penned by Sharpe himself, had artistic merit and he was consequently protected from prosecution.
As the judge stated, to forbid possession of this material would be one step away from censoring people's thoughts. Much as I hate to contemplate those thoughts, these people have a right to them, and a right to put them on paper. Goes back to not agreeing with what you say, but defending your right to say it.
The following link has some further info on this case.
http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/sharpe_po
As I stated in a previous post (from knowledge based upon the fact that I am, indeed, a psychologist), people who engage in child molestation do so regardless of outside influences. Conversely, pornography - nor the lack thereof - won't turn a human being into a child molestor.
It doesn't matter if you do or don't provide virtual child porn, RealDolls, or what have you. If the person in question isn't a child molestor *then he won't molest* - it's that simple. If he is a child molestor *then he will molest no matter what 'releases' or available*.
Anything else provides an excuse for the molestor (e.g., "if I had virtual porn I wouldn't have raped the kid", or oppositely, "the virtual kiddie porn encouraged me to rape the kid"). This is no different from the frat-boy argument "if she hadn't dressed so slutty/danced with me/whatever then I wouldn't have raped her".
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
My uncle is/was a pedophile. He has never acted upon his feelings, yet he is tortured by them. He goes to counciling weeky. He can not be "cured" because they can't change their feelings. They can just give him medication (decreases testosterone levels, etc), that will prevent him from acting out. Part of his therapy was to look at "non-erotic" pictures of prepubescents. (not child porn, since they can not legally suggest that). Basically soft-core. Naturist photos etc. He tells me what he's going through. He says "imagine herterosexuality was illegal. You were not allowed to act on your desires. You would have to locl yourself inside of a room. Somepeople might get arrested". You know how some people are so socially inept they couldn't get laid if they tried? Well, that's my uncle, but as a pedophile. He doesn't have the chutzpah. But man, does he wish he can.
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
The problem with your studies is that they're done on child molesters, *not* the pedophile population at large. Most pedophiles live quiet lives of never touching children inappropriately, jerking off to the Sears catalogue, and never ever telling anyone that they are attrcted to children.
The people in such studies are very different--they're the ones who have no self-control and molested someone. There's a big difference. You very likely know at least one such pedophile personally, and would never guess his secret proclivities.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
> The play has Juliet as a 12 year old
M 7PNsyjrwC: www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/love-in-the-arts/romeo.ht ml+Romeo+Juliet%27s+age&hl=en&client=googletd maybe bits of it were written before he made the change and not revised?).
Thirteen, nearly fourteen.
"She hath not seen the change of fourteen years;"
"Come Lammas-eve at night shall she be fourteen."
And while Romeo and Juliet don't live to consummate their relationship, her mother says
"Well, think of marriage now: younger than you,
Here in Verona, ladies of esteem,
Are made already mothers: by my count
I was your mother much upon these years
That you are now a maid."
This study guide says she was sixteen in the story Shakespeare adapted:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:QZ
(An
rant