'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.

Comments

child porn

[spookysuicide]

I work on a porn site. Everytime we shoot a girl we get two forms of ID from her, almost always a drivers license and a social security card. We then photocopy those IDS and take a picture of the girl with something that has a date on it (newspaper most of the time). We file all these documents away so that we can prove when we shot the girls they were over the age of 18. I never complain about this extra work. Ever. It's the right thing to do. Girls under 18 should not ever be depicted in Porn. Period. They are for the most part not capable of making a decision that may have ramifications on the rest of their life.

That being said, the part of this law that always terrified me was that part that stated you can't depict an adult as a minor in pornography. We shoot girls who like to wear their hair in pigtails. Could they have come after me for that?

I am very against Child Pornography, but this law really worried me that I might go to jail sometime for someones interpertation of something.

Re:child porn

[Ionized]

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.

Re:child porn

[gwernol]

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.

Films that would be banned for "virtual" child sex

[bjorky]

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.

Re:Films that would be banned for "virtual" child

[Rupert]

I definitely think we'd be better off without Porky's II.

What about art?

[alen]

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.

Re:The goal should be to protect children

[Seth Finkelstein]

The pedophile impulse seems to have very little to do with with the images. That is, the images are generated from the impulse, not vice-versa. People trying to ban suggestive images (those not imvolving abuse of real children) have cause and effect reversed.

Real reference:

http://www.netspeed.com.au/ttguy/refs2.htm

Howitt, D. Pornography and the paedophile: Is it criminogenic? British Journal of Medical Psychology, 1995 68:15-27. Abstract: Presents case studies of 11 fixated adult male pedophiles interviewed in a private clinic for sex offenders about topics including their offending, their psychosexual histories, pornography, fantasy, and sexual abuse in childhood. Commercial pornography was rarely a significant aspect of their use of erotica although some experience of such materials was typical. Most common was "soft-core" heterosexually oriented pornography. Explicit child pornography was uncommon. However, Subjects also generated their own erotic materials from relatively innocuous sources such as television advertisements, clothing catalogs featuring children modeling underwear, and similar sources. In no case did exposure to pornography precede offending-related behavior in childhood.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Okay, how about a non-school examples

[drew_kime]

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:

Detrick Washington, 25, was at his business partner's San Francisco, Calif., home office when two men forced their way in ... "I'll go and kill the kids and that girl if you don't give me the rest of the money," one of the robbers said. While they ransacked the home, Washington saw his chance: one robber put his gun down, and Washington grabbed it ... "He took a chance. I believe we could call him a hero," police Inspector Armand Gordon said. Washington "basically saved five people's lives, including his own" by grabbing the gun. Police ruled the shooting justified, yet Washington is in jail: he is on parole from a previous drug conviction, and parole rules say parolees cannot "possess" a firearm. Because Washington grabbed the robber's gun, he was in "possession" of the weapon and violated his parole.

Laws are supposed to be specific in order to restrict police activity, not to require it.

Virtual Child Porn *Should* Be Legal

[Chasing Amy]

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.

Re:Virtual Child Porn *Should* Be Legal

[maxpublic]

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

Oh come now...

[Chasing Amy]

> There is no scientific evidence that supports this belief.

There's no definitive scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic, either. And yet, that is a valid theory that scientists are working to prove or disprove. Unfortunately there's no active research trying to prove or disprove the corralating hypothesis about pedophilia being genetic, unlike with homosexuality. Let's not forget that homosexuality was also defined by the psychological community as a mental disease just like pedophilia, until relatively recently.

> This is dangerous ground you're treading as it provides apologia to child molestors.

I'm interested in the truth, and the Truth, both scientific and philosophical. Who cares where it leads, if it's the truth? I'd rather not be an ignorant bigot, thank you.

> As for the rest of your argument concerning prehistory, there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for this either.

There's not a single shred of evidence for a lot of theories regarding prehistoric evolutionary behaviours. But ask any anthropologist, and he can give you a lot of likely theories that make sense and are generally thought likely, though there's no solid evidence for them. That's the trouble with talking prehistory--no one was writing stuff down, you know. :-)

> It doesn't make any biological sense

I explained exactly why it makes biological sense. Men attracted to prepuscent girls in prehistory, back when evolution was still actively going largely according to natural selection, would probably take a prepubescent girl as a mate. Her first offspring, when she reaches menses and is capable, will almost surely be his, unlike if one takes an older postpubescent mate. In addition, any psychologist should be familiar with the phenomenon that a girl very often bonds closely to her first sexual partner, in ways she does not typiclly bond with other lovers aside from the first. A real devotion, consuming, often develops in these young romances. Therefore, a pedophile in prehistory who takes a young girl as mate will likely have a level of emotional attachment from her unlike what normal adult women display with their non-first-partner mates. This can be a very important bond, particularly in rough prehistoric cultures.

> it isn't mimicked by any mammal alive, including our closest relatives - primates.

Absolutely incorrect. Our closest [primate relatives are Bonobo monkeys, related to chimps--theres a bit of a debate as to whether they should be considered a subset of the chimp population, or a species in their own right; but that is unimportant. What is important is that they display the whole range of human sexual behaviors, including sex or sexual play with prepubescent partners. Some adult males show preference for sex play with very young partners. So ys, our closest primate relatives sometimes display pedophiliac behaviours.

> There is nothing good about pedophilia.

I just told you why it *may* have been useful in prehistory, just as homosexuality was and remains today. Pedophilia, however, is no longer a viable or acceptable orientation.

> This is not an 'orientation'.

It absolutly is. Just because the same mental health professionals who until relatively recently classified homosexuality as a mental disease, still classify pedophilia as one (child molesting should be the disease, for there is a difference in having desires and having too little conscience to prevent oneself from acting upon them), does not mean that it is. I'm confident that the real, "hard" sciences will eventually present a concrete genetic explanation for pedophilia and homosexuality as well.

> I'm disturbed by your willingness to provide child molestors with excuses or rationalizations.

As I said, I want the truth and Truth, both scientific and philosophical. I don't care what the results in the short term are, because in the long term the more we know about ourselves and our world, the better. You seem more concerned with whether a pedophile thinks of his affliction as an orientation rather than a disease, than with knowing the truth. For shame.

> If they touch a child they deserve - and rightly so - to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

I never disagreed with that. Again, pedophile is to child molester as heterosexual is to rapist--not all pedophiles molest children, just as not all heterosexuals rape adults. There can be and are "normal" pedophiles who realize that they must remain celibate and have the slf-control to do so. Those lacking in self-control and empathy may touch children inappropriately and become child molesters, in which case they must be punished. But being attrcted to chuilden is neither a disease nor a crime, as long as one never acts upon those desires.