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.
Off the top of my head:
-The Tin Drum - was and probably still is banned in OKC
-Kids
-American Pie I & II
-Porkys I, II, and Revenge
-In fact, pretty much all teen sex comedies
-Lolita (old and new)
Do these films appeal to purient interests? Would we be better off without them because they portray characters that are under the age of 18?
Kind of odd though... nothing illegal about people under 18 having sex in most states, but to depict such is illegal... and before this ruling it was illegal to portray persons "acting" under the age of 18.
"Defenestration" is to throw out of a window; what's a word for throwing 'Windows' out of something?
As deplorable as child pornography is, I'm glad to see this struck down. The legislation was way to vague, and from what I understand made any simulation of underage sex illegal. That would presumably include some of the anime that's so popular around here, if it could be argued that any character portrayed might appear to be under age 18. The whole thing borders on 'thought crime'.
Go after the real child pornographers, the ones harming innocent children. String them up by their testicles and make them read Jon Katz articles, or whatever... but don't start making artificial arrangements of pixels a felony.
On the one hand, you've got to protect minors. You've also got to make sure that you have the ability to enforce laws that protect minors.
/. group will take.
On the other, you've got the natural defense of the first amendment and the argument "we're not hurting anyone." Which I feel the
There's a few issues I have with this (I only read the article and some of the Act) one of them being using pictures of real kids? That doesn't seem fair to the kid. I'd be kinda pissed if there was child porn going around of me out there, even if it was just my face pasted onto something else.
Then again, I'd be pissed if someone pasted my face on the guys at goatse, so what does that matter.
Even though they disgraced themselves in the presidential election, they've restored at least a small shred of my faith in their ability to look at explosive political issues like child porn and still manage to give the constitutional issues a fair and thoughtful hearing. Let's hope they do the same when all these privacy-shredding "antiterrorist" laws make it to their chambers.
Fried ice cream is a reality. - George Clinton
Quite simply, there is a difference between being attracted to children and acting on it.
There is no conceivable reason people should be resticted from producing computer generated child porn that causes no harm to children directly.
By the way, when it comes to speech and art, it doesn't matter what it causes indirectly. I don't care if Grand Theft Auto increased auto theft by 10%, or Doom caused columbine, or if child porn increases sickening child rape. It simply is NOT an excuse to restrict peoples liberties.
And the supreme court, even this rather conservative supreme court, understands it. Huzzah.
I am thinking that creating 'imitation' child pornography is not any better. Somewhat like robbing a store with a fake gun.
I don't think you thought through your analogy fully. The owner of the store that is robbed is victimized by the robber. But if some pervert wants to look at cartoon 12 year-olds having sex, there are no victims.
Is it right to do either of those two things? In my opnion, no. But can you punish someone for fantasizing about committing a crime? I don't think so. And if having that fantasy available keeps an individual from acting on it (and therefore committing a non-victimless crime), then I don't see a problem.
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
right, because the day they turn 18, something magical happens and suddenly they understand all the possible repercussions that getting naked on camera could have.
that one day's difference is enough to teach them a whole lifetime of moral and social implications, and they can suddenly make that choice that they could not have made 24 hours previously.
what a bunch of bunk. i'm all for the protection of innocence, but the meme that 18 is a special age is complete nonsense. teenagers have sex across the country, and to pretend that people under 18 lack sexuality is ignorant and harmful. the fact that an 18 year old male can be placed in prison and permanently branded "sex offender" for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend offends me. i know that when i was 16 years old, i was damn well smart enough to know what pornography meant, and that if i got naked on camera it would last forever.
this is a bit of a touchy subject for me. the current laws on child pornography and statutory rape are closeminded and plain wrong, and need reform.
The best way to protect children is to give an outlet to the perverts who want child pornography or who create it, a legal outlet which harms no one, virtual child porn may be the answer.
Theres no way you can ever rid the world of these people, they will always exsist, and taking away their virtual porn would make them create more child porn or worse, rape and abuse children.
So in the best interest of the children, Virtual Porn should be legal.
Virtual porn directly takes money away from the REAL child porn industry, and that is key to stopping child porn.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
In the Middle Ages people were considered adults at age 13 or so. It wasn't uncommon for people in their teens to be married, having sex and blessed with children. And there are many paintings from the time of nude women who were most likely under 18 when they posed for the painting. So would all this centuries old art have to be destroyed if the law would have been upheld.
"I am thinking that creating 'imitation' child pornography is not any better. Somewhat like robbing a store with a fake gun."
More like robbing a fake store with a fake gun. Sort of like those things called 'movies'.
"I wont garner a lot of support on this as I can already here replies to the above but people who like to look at child pornography become people who want to act out on what they have been taking in."
So people who watch robberies in movies become people who want to become robbers? Very flawed logic. Please do not go see the movie Deliverence if you feel this way. And oh my gosh the reality cop shows just have to go!
Seriously, child explotation of any sort is really really bad, but unless you want government sanctioned morality in all facets of life, this was just bad law. Enforce the laws against child explotation to the fullest, make the penalties tougher, makes the laws more defined, but never, never, never believe the government is your babysitter and will protect you from all the ills of the world. It just won't happen, and selective enforcement will put your liberties at risk.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Child pornography is not inherently any moral position.
People that make child pornography are not child molestors, unless they molest children in making it.
Taking a snapshot of your kid in the tub and then whacking off to it isn't damaging. Fondling your kid's genitals and taking pictures of it for later whacking is.
Imitation child pornography doesn't involve people, and cannot be construed as damaging to people, since none are damaged.
People that view child pornography or molest children have a natural disposition towards children, sexually. Much like people have disposition towards male or female adults, fat people, one-eyed 80 year olds with peg legs, etc.
There's nothing making them act on raping children, except themselves. If children were capable of consenting, then it would be a non-issue. But a majority of molestation occurs in small children by a family members, and it's perfectly clear in these cases that the child isn't mentally developed to a point to consent.
Child pornography laws should always take into account the age of consent in the given state. If you're old enough to allow someone to have sex with you, then you're old enough to take pictures of your genitals for people to whack off to.
Civilization has been built on a lot of 13 year old brides, and suddenly it's in a hurry to condem its ancestors as child molestors. When people try to move away, totally, from reality in their sexual appetite, you just can't stop following them.
Hey, I find child pr0n as unappealing as fat pr0n or old people pr0n, but it's not my fucking business what you whack off to. Respect the same of me, and everyone else.
The situation is far worse than that.
If we let the so-called conservatives have their way, the day before her 18th birthday that cute little thing shouldn't even be aware that pornography exists (much less that the pictures last forever) or aware that people will pay her money to take her clothes off. As for sex, that's something she'll learn about on her wedding night.
But at midnight she's thrown to the wolves - it's legal for some sleazy operator to sign her up to not only take off her clothes on film, but to have engage in all types of sex.
Fortunately some judges have (finally) started to realize that applying laws intended to protect children - real children, no more than 10 or 12 - from the harsher facts of life are morally reprehensible when they're applied to teenagers. It's better to shock a sheltered 15- or 16-year-old than to leave an 18-year-old unprepared for life. But Congress is still getting away with crappy laws - they get to pander to the idiots back home while counting on the courts to eventually save themselves from their own folly.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
...for pornographers.
It'd be great, though, if they started looking out for the little guy by, say, repealing the ridiculous 90-year copyright. It's great that they're doing a little bit to protect free speech, but there are some other free expression matters out there that are in more need of attention.
I think a perfect example would be the anime video Kite. Scenes of an the main character at an obviously younger age in sexual situations with an adult were removed for the American release, even though it was animated. There are other examples of child sexuality, and too many teen ones to count in Japanese Animation.
There are quite a few foreign films and shows on the list, too. I would still say that Lolita is the defining film/book on the list, though.
Not every country is bothered by child sexuality, and the vast majority of human cultures in history have regarded teens as adults. The hundreds of films in America where teens are sexually active makes the law way too broad in that regard alone. I'm not defending kiddy porn, I'm just trying to point out that however harshly we may oppose it, it is too poorly and subjectively defined to legislate against easily, particularly in a country as diverse as ours. The biggest problem would be defining what is permissible in the depiction of underaged sexuality and what is not.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
From the song Smut , by Tom Lehrer
Very apropos.Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Bullshit.
Pedophilia is not an "aquired" taste like coffee or cigarettes. It is a mental instability that is found in some individuals. Don't screw up the cause and effect here. People don't become pedophiles, or more active pedophiles, because they are looking at kiddie porn. People look at kiddie porn BECAUSE they are either passive or active pedophiles.
There will always be the few extrordinary circumstances <snip inflammatory example> which is why the judicial system exists. Not to interpret.
What do you think "judge" means? It is to exercise judgement. Opinions like yours are why:
The courts are the last check against the enforcement of bad laws. (This should be the place of a jury, but appeals courts have taken the activity on for themselves.)
Nope, no sig
And that's exactly the problem with our legal system. An adversarial system, presided over by an allegedly impartial judge, that demands a binary verdict, is neither social, nor natural nor just.
All legal systems are just formalizations of mob rule. No? Then why do we have juries? The trouble is that we allowed lawyers into the system, then we allowed lawyers to decide what the law would be. 50% of both Congress and the Senate are members of the American Bar Association. If that doesn't scare you, then it should. We will never see meaningful legal reform, or a streamlining of our bloated system, as long as our laws are written by lawyers, for lawyers.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Maybe, Maybe not. If pedophiles have virtual porn to use, it allows them to explore, and be sexually satisfied by, their fantasies. However, repeated use of virtual porn could legitimize the fantasy acts in the pedophile's mind and lead him/her to seek greater stimulation in the real world. If you're used to looking at pictures of kids in a sexual context, you'll start to see real-life kids as sexual beings. This could lower mental barriers to attack.
While virtual child porn won't create new pedophiles, it could make existing ones more dangerous. I don't think it should be restricted on free speech grounds, but let's not pretend that it's inconceivable for child porn to lead to molestation.
worth restricting people's rights.
It's like the DMCA... It ASSUMES that people are guilty because they look at non-real images. It ASSUMES that these people will later go and commit a crime.
Would SOME people commit a crime based on this virtual desire? Probably.
Should the government assume ALL people are criminals and strip our rights to expression because a few people MAY commit a crime?
BTW - Romeo and Juliet - underage sex. Titanic - underage sex. Traffic - Underage sex. Lolita - underage sex. I think you get the picture. There are a LOT of films and artwork that depict "virtual" mature scenes (not necessarily nudity, but the law outlawed any notion that kids may be having sex, even if it wasn't explicitly shown), because it is a part of the film and the characters are supposed to be under 18.
These films were technically outlawed before.
This decision is a win for people's right to expression, especially when there is no real victim. Even if the idea is putrid to most, we can't force value judgements on everyone based on concepts that do not harm others (although we do all the time: see homosexuality, etc.)
Ciao!
I'm 19 and trust me, most teenagers are idiots who cannot make informed decisions. With that said, I don't care about the decisions of others as long as they don't affect me. Have sex, shoot heroin, pierce your body parts. Go for it. Just deal with the consiquences. Oh you're pregnant? Oh you've been kicked out of your house? Oh your new piercing is infected? Boohoo. This is what we call, the school of hard knocks. 17 year olds might not know any better but ya know.. this is why they say "You live and you learn". right?
Saying you're disturbed by it isn't a valid reason for making it illegal. Lots of people are disturbed that you go shooting. Would you like it if they made it illegal for you to own guns and shoot? Restricting one person's right to read/listen/watch/do things that don't affect others ends up restricting your right to read/listen/watch/do things that don't affect others also. It's only freedom if you're willing to share.
For the record, I am a liberal in every sense of the word. Law's should punish those who harm the freedom or well being of others. Law's should not make criminals of people who have done no harm to others. Victimless crimes aren't crimes. Owning a gun, shouldn't be a crime, using it to harm others should be a crime. Owning "Lolita" shouldn't be a crime, acting it out should be a crime. Get the picture?
I object to the increasing criminalization of the simple ownership of objects and not the acts of using them in ways which infringe upon the rights of others. That goes for guns, virtual child porn and bebop jazz. I don't like some of them, but I respect your right to own them. Laws should not make criminals of people who respect other peoples' rights and freedoms.
Enkidu EOT
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
This is the problem with modern law:
Law cannot be 'up for interpretation'. This is why the drinking age is 21, why the pr0n age is 18. Once you make things open for interpretation, cops are suddenly 'biased' and governments are suddenly tyrannical.
First this is not a "modern" problem. The debate about absolute laws versus interpretation has been around for at least a thousand years.
Law has to be open to a certain amount of interpretation. This is a fundamental principle of government and one of the reasons the American constitution is framed to separate the judicial and legislative branches. The framers recognized that there has to be interpretation in the system and put an explicit procedure in place to allow the judicial branch to interpret the laws written by the legislative branch.
If you didn't allow interpretation lawmakers would have to anticipate every possibility both present and future. This is at best an absurdly optimistic requirement. In the real world it is impossible to write a law that will never require interpretation. The system needs to be able to adapt to changes in society. Look how much the interpretation of the first amendment has changed since the second world war.
The system must retain some flexibility or it will become obsolete, inappropriate and eventually so out of touch it will be overthrown. The only questions are how much interpretation should be allowed and where and who should be responsible for interpreting. These are good and important questions and are widely debated in the legal profession and elsewhere.
When things are clear cut there is no argument. You either broke the law or you didn't. There will always be the few extrordinary circumstances (is abortion murder or self mutilation? one is illegal, one is not.) which is why the judicial system exists. Not to interpret.
This is clearly not true - go back to the constitution and the founding of the American judicial system. Take a look at the roles of the courts of appeal, especially the Supreme Court. The judicial system exists both to interpret and to rule based on law.
Sailing over the event horizon
The law didn't say that -- or even come close to saying that. The law basically gave law enforcement free reign to arrest just about anyone who makes porn. Essentially, the law says that anything that could possibly be constrewed as child porn is child porn. It did address the virtual-kiddie porn, but this was not the major point for the Supreme COurt's overturning of the law.
If your stance is that all forms of pornography shuold be banned because it encourages sexual deviancy, please say it clearly. That is what your article is saying.
As far as the article goes, it does come right out and say that (essentially), all porn should be banned because it encourages sexual deviancy. After reading the first paragraph of the article (ie: spending a day in hell), I couldn't weigh in an ounce of credibility as for the discreditation of the sex researchers (which, paraphrased, says that since one of the sex researchers in question is a self-admitted pedophile, his research has no value). The way that it intrinsically associates pedophilia with homosexuality makes me shudder. Shame on them. That's not good journalism -- its neo-conservative banter.
-Turkey
-Turkey
Just check out Grand Theft Auto 3 or any of the other hundreds of other games.
I don't think any course of action that's been tried to date (castration, drugs to kill the libido, and negative re-inforcement) have had any significant effect on pedophiles.
As long as no one is hurt, live and let live.
We could have a test, like they do on Vulcan. Call it... Oh, I dunno, high school graduation. You get your diploma, you're an adult. I seem to recall Heinlein suggesting that US citizens couldn't vote unless they had a year of calculus. So some would adult at 15, some never.
We are the first generation of Morlocks. Eat the rich!
When discussing computer generated child porn, many people ask - why _should_ there be computer generated child porn?
The main argument behind the banning of child porn is that the production of it constitutes the sexual abuse of a child. It has little to do with the effects it has on individuals viewing such material. The argument that viewing child porn would cause someone to become or indicate that they are a pedophile is as logically invalid as the claim that watching porn would indicate or induce some sort of sexual deviance.
There is even an argument for allowing computer generated child porn. (remember - no children are harmed in the digital creation process) What if these images satisfied the sexual urges of pedophiles? Suddenly we'd find that this material our society strongly condems prevents a much worse situation.
Ultimately, computer generated child porn skirts our current definition of child porn (an image in which a child is being sexually abused). When does a digital rendering become too close to that of a real child? Thats something that is VERY difficult to put into words which will be interpreted similarly by many people.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
The hypocricy is unbelievable. You are the exact same people who argue that "Video games do not cause violence, poor parenting causes that". And now many of you are arguing that fake child porn encourages pedophilia? It's the exact same thing, you can't start ruling on all digital pictures being illegal, or else you are going to shoot yourself in the foot. I could EASILY see someone lobbying for violence in video games to be outlawed on account of illegal digital child porn setting a precident for all digital "corruption" being outlawed.
-Alex
My friend, Ted Bundy's spurious claims were discredited years ago. He made them in an attempt to receive leniency based on the fact that he claimed an addiction to porn made him do it. So, it was a statement made by a very clever serial killer to try to avoid the death penalty. He wanted to trade his "help" in studying the evils of pornography, for a commutation of the death sentence.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Unlike most people here, I actually know some pedophiles on a personal level. I met many online, while researching a pedophile character for a book I was writing.
After conversing with many of them, I had to come to the conclusion that pedophilia is no different from heterosexuality or homosexuality, except that heteros and homos can enjoy healthy sex lives and pedos can't. That's unfortunate, and sometimes, in the case of people with low self-control, leads to the horrible crime of child molestation. But we must always remember that heterosexual is to rapist as peophile is to child molester--not all pedophiles are child molesters any more than all heterosexuals are rapists.
We should attempt to help these people to control their sexual urges instead of stigmatizing them; that would *really* bring child sexual abuse statistics down. Virtual child porn is a nice start--no ral children involved, placed entirely in fantasy, to provide pedophiles with the same release valve for sexual tensions that heterosexuals and homosexuals have in regular porn. Get horny, watch virtual porn, jerk off, no more horniness. That's how it works in human males, unlike the moralizers' baseless claims that porn makes people want to act out more in real life. No, it releases sexual tensions. If every pedophile whacked off o some realistic-looking virtual childporn fuckfilms once or twice a day, they'd never have a strong urge to touch a child in real life, because the sexual urge would be sated.
I also wish pedophiles could get RealDolls which look like young girls, too. That would help to satisfy their sexual urges even further, resulting in fewer cases of really touching children. Anything which causes a real reduction of child molestation, without violating essential Constitutional rights, is a good thing in my book.
I found out in my research that pedophiles aren't automatically bad people or people who do bad things. They're just like you and I, except their sexual attractions are focused towards people whom it's unacceptable to engage sexually in this day and age. In prehistory pedophilia probably served a real purpose--finding a mate when she's young and bonding to her, so that her offspring when she becomes fertile will definitely be yours, and she'll likely be very devoted. Homosexuality is said to also serve an evolutionary purpose--homosexuals won't likely have childen of their own, and therefore will likely give some of their resources to their neices and nephews, resulting in a more rsource-rich childhood for the children of those families who have homosexual members. The difference is pedophilia is no longer viable and socially acceptable, while heterosexuality and homosexuality are.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
So, since in many cases it is impossible to determine whether Bruce Willis actually shot someone dead, or whether he only pretended to, we must ban the Die Hard movies. Take away the hot-button issue of child porn -- consider this as an expansion of criminality of intent -- and the ridiculous nature of the law becomes obvious.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
No, that's not what the law tries to achieve. The age of 18 was picked because the vast majority of people are informed about these issues before they turn 18. That makes 18 a safe age to give them them control of their sexuality. I'm well aware that their are 15 year olds having sex - some of them know what the full consequences of their actions, some don't. I've only met two 18 year olds that really didn't know enough about sex to make a well informed decision and both of them had it beaten into their head that sex was bad so they weren't going be easily taken advantage of anyway. I know many 16 year olds that had no clue what they were getting themselves into.
When it comes down to it, this law is about whether it is better to set a conservative age of consent and have a very high probability that any legal sex is between people who know what they're doing or reducing the age of consent and having a lower percentage. Personally, I think it's better that you wait until you're 18 until you have sex in exchange for lowering the number of people who are taken advantage of. I've seen how devastating it can be to be taken advantage of (not just abused, but that druken one night stand as well), it really can destroy self-confidence and sense of worth. Sure, it shouldn't be that big a deal, but it is.
The other option is to have to a court (or some other board) assess whether or not someone is fit to make their own decisions. Apart from this being a pretty horrific experience for someone who has just been taken advantage of (ever seen how awful a rape case can be for the victim?), it also means that you can never be sure that you're sexual activities are legal.
the fact that an 18 year old male can be placed in prison and permanently branded "sex offender" for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend offends me.
If he's mature enough to decide to have sex, shouldn't he be mature enough to know the laws regarding sex and take this into consideration in his decision? I don't know about the US, but here in Australia it is illegal to have sex when under the age of consent regardless of the age of your partner (ie: two 15 year olds having sex with each other is illegal - they are both guilty of carnal knowledge). If this is the case in the US, then your 18 year old example by law shouldn't have been having sex previously and now has at most a year to wait if he wants to have sex with his (currently 17 year old)girlfriend. Seriously, is that really so bad?
It's not easy to turn down an opportunity to have sex - it takes a great deal of maturity to realise that you shouldn't be doing it even though you know it's going to feel "oh so good", so I pity this 18 year old male who has to make that decision, but for the reasons I've outlined above, it's probably the best option that I've seen. Got something better? I'd love to hear it, heck I'd love to see it implemented. We need to find a system that allows you to be certain that what your doing is legal, protects the innocent as much as possible and allows "mature teens" (for some definition of mature) to be able to control their own sexuality. Perhaps the hardest thing though, is defining "mature teens" - when exactly are you mature enough? At least to me, the answer that your mature enough when you're 18 isn't such a bad solution as the only thing it really fails on is handling those mature teens to have sex earlier than the others and that really doesn't hurt anyone (frustrate the hell out of them maybe, but hurt no).
Here's another example of how schools enforce laws in a very broken manner:
I recently started administering a portion of my district computer system at a locked-down facility for children. In order to work there I had to read the 'must report' rules for suspected child abuse. I found that if a child came in with bruises on his or her arm over several months, then came to school with a cast on that same arm, it wasn't grounds for suspecting abuse. WTF?
However, if a child (and I'm talking child here, the example was a 5-year-old/kindergartner) told me that her uncle had picked her up in such a fashion as to put his hands on her 'breasts' then I *had* to report it as suspected sexual molestation.
Think about this for a moment: the guidelines specifically used the word 'breasts' for the imaginary 5-year-old. Yet as any sane adult knows *5-year-old girls don't have breasts*. They have a chest not at all different from that of *5-year-old boys*. But no breasts. Makes you wonder about the mental state of the person who wrote the guidelines.
I also realized that I had violated the guidelines on numerous occasions with my niece - in fact, every time I'd picked her up by grabbing her under the arms and swinging her through the air. Because my hands, being so large against her tiny 6-year-old body, always wrap around her chest - er, 'breasts', according to the whackos who wrote the manual. So according to these guidelines it would be reasonable to assume that I had *molested my niece on multiple occasions*.
Really, it's shit like this that puts the fear of the state into your heart. If I had picked up my niece and played 'airplane' with her when she came to visit me on the job, I could've gone to jail under the 'mandatory reporting' rules of the school district....
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I know many 16 year olds that had no clue what they were getting themselves into.
This says nothing of the 16-year-old but rather the society they live in, and their parents.
A common fallacy among Americans is the idea that a) they know better than everyone else what the age for sexual activity should be, and b) that whatever limit is currently in place is the way it's always been.
We should note that most of the world's population lives in countries where the legal age for sexual activity is lower than 18. We should also note that it was lower than 18 in most areas of the U.S. until the last century.
And we should also be aware that girls and boys have been able to have sex at an age earlier than 18 ever since the race evolved. This didn't become a problem until we decided it was a problem, and acted accordingly. I sincerely doubt it was because Americans suddenly happened upon a superior moral imperative that our ancestors failed to notice, and that most of the rest of the world has yet to catch on to (barbarians!). Or that it was just recently 'discovered' that teens aren't 'capable' of handling sex, whatever that means.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?