'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.

Seems like the right decision

[terrymr]

I hate child pornographers as much as the next man - but the language in the act was so broad as to make teen movies like American Pie possible targets for example.

I understand the difficulty of proving that an actual child was involved in making a picture / movie / whatever - but isn't it always necessary to prove that a crime has been committed before you can get a conviction ?

Re:Seems like the right decision

[phil reed]

>but isn't it always necessary to prove that a
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.)

Re:Seems like the right decision

[terrymr]

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.)
The court didn't overturn that portion of the act. Read the decision

The goal should be to protect children

[HanzoSan]

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.

Re:The goal should be to protect children

[LordNimon]

Unfortunately, this is a flawed argument. The problem is that sick people are almost never satisfied with a moderate amount of whatever makes them sick. If you give them all the virtual child porn they want, then some of them will want to take it to the "next level". If they had never gotten the virtual stuff in the first place, they may have been able to control their urges enough to keep children safe.

He's right guys.

[El Camino SS]

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 /.er.

Re:So this would apply to all porn

[Elwood P Dowd]

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.

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 [netspeed.com.au]

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) [sethf.com]

Re:Porn turns men into rapists and women into slut

[Martin Blank]

In 1967, Congress established and funded a National Commission on Pornography. Its report, published in 1970, found that it was not pornography, but the puritanical attitudes toward pornography that cause problems in America. The report said the problems stemmed "from the inability or reluctance of people in our society to be open and direct in dealing with sexual matters." In surveys, the commission found that only 2 percent of Americans thought sexually explicit material was a significant social problem. The report recommended that all legislation interfering with the right of adults to read, obtain, or view explicit sexual material be repealed.

-- 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.

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.

Re:No Interest?!

[Chasing Amy]

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.

Re:The goal should be to protect children

[xtremex]

There was a huge discussion concerning this on Kuro5hin. My uncle is a convicted pedophile. However, he never did anything. He turned himself in. Didn't work. His fantasies are still there. He claims he is no different than homosexuals. If his desire is considered sick, than the desire of homosexuals must be sick as well. He said that since society is more accepting of homosexuals, it is no longer a sickness (since 1967). I'm not saying I agree with him, it's just that it's an interesting topic of discussion

Completely wrong

[xtremex]

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.

Re:Seems like the right decision

[bmongar]

- but the language in the act was so broad as to make teen movies like American Pie possible targets for example.

I thought American Pie was a crime.

Re:Seems like the right decision

[GMontag]

You came to the right conclusion without any of the correct premises:

but isn't it always necessary to prove that a crime has been committed before you can get a conviction

What was struck down was *virtual* child porn. The act of makingan adult *appear* to be a child in certain acts is what was against the law, the proof would be the film of adults depicted to be children.

The law also made a criminal offense of creating sophisticated drawings, i.e., pictures, of non-existant children in various acts. Here again, the creation of the picture is a crime, not that it may or may not have depicted a real-world situation that the artist had seen or arranged.

From the article: "The appeals court said the government did not show a connection between computer-generated child pornography and the exploitation of actual children.

The Supreme Court upheld the appeals court, finding that the law would ban images that are not obscene as the court has previously defined that term. Neither obscenity nor child pornography involving real children is protected by the Constitution's free-speech guarantee."

Also from the article: "The group did not challenge a section of the law that banned the use of identifiable children in computer-altered sexual images."

Thus, nobody is challenging real harm to real children.

17

[Kallahar]

What really pisses me off about the cases that led up to this (and are related to this) is that they consider depicting 17-year olds having sex to be "child pornography". In my mind, this simply dilutes the danger of "child porn". They use the same terminology when referring to kids with guns. Most "kids" that die from guns are 15-17 year old gang members, not some 8-year old with daddy's gun which is what they try to imply.

Perhaps we need a new official classification. "kid" and "child" mean 12 and under, "teen" = 13-17, "adult" = 18+. That would clarify things greatly, at least in my mind. But of course it would hurt their advertising against "child porn".

Travis

Re:17

[dryueh]

The reason all individuals 17 and under are subsumed under the 'child porn' classification is so that we can draw a line somewhere. Now this line may seem either arbitrary or appropriate, depending on your perspective, but I think I can agree that some line needs to be drawn. If we start inserting more categories, it seems that these lines become more and more obscure and, thus, less and less relevant.

Maybe it would be better to simply call 'child' porn "pornographic depictions of minors", of which children, whether 17 or 7, are all a part. Does that sound better?

I wonder, are there stiffer penalties for depicting 4 year olds rather than 17 year olds ? I'm not sure

stiffer penalties

[wiredog]

In general (law, not just child porn law) there are not stiffer penalties per se, but the penalty is usually something like "1 to 5 years". Plus, there are several different "crimes" that can be defined for each act. The sentence thus can range anywhere from 0 years to life depending on how the person is charged and sentenced.

Re:In my mind, or in law?

[Kintanon]

around 15-16 or so, a girl becomes a woman, The law is 18, thats only what 2-3 years diffrence to what my mind considers child porn.


Considering that there are now girls 8 years and under developing breasts and beginning menstruation in some parts of the world you may want to reconsider your definitions. I would suggest that the legal age of everything be dropped to 18. Let people be 100% adults at 18 years old. Then allow an age break for child pornography/statutory rape. Say, if the minor involved is no greater than 2 years younger than the adult involved then it cannot be considered statutory rape (This is already in place in a lot of states), and apply the same statute to so-called "child porn".

Kintanon

Re:17

[Artagel]

The entire Supreme Court thought that near-adult depictions were protected. The only disagreemet was whether to try to rescue some piece of the law by construing it narrowly.

Congress wants to grandstand, not put a survivable regulation in. If they were serious, they would have crafted the law to cover pre-pubescent activity. Once that gets upheld, or after there is a successful "computer generated" defense, you THEN pass the section going after computer generated images, etc.

This incremental approach is the winning way. You win, win, win, each win increasing your position. Thurgood Marshall did that with civil rights. Congress right now is dedicated to lose, lose, lose, each loss narrows what is possible.

Re:17

[j-turkey]

In some states, there is a differential between ages for certian crimes involving a child (not necessarily possession/distribution of child porn, but relevant to sex crimes). Especially in the case of the sexual abuse/rape of a child, where, in the case of a child under 12 will carry a greater penalty than a "teen". (See TN penal statues -- sorry, no link off the top of my head).

Another simlar case is drug penalties. In many states, sale of a small amount of cannabis to a minor carries significant penalties (mandatory minimum sentence) -- whereas sale of less than 28 G for no profit to a minor of no less than 3 years younger than the seller carries a misdemeanor with a small monetary penalty. (see norml.org's state-by state cannabis laws [norml.org]).

The problem that I can see (from what you addressed) is the inconsistencies in the laws. If you're 19, and sell pot to a 17-year-old -- no felony...but if you're 19, and film your sexual exploits with your 17-year-old girlfriend/boyfriend -- by legal definition, you're a manufacturer of child pornography, a felon, and when you get out of jail, you will have to register as a sex offender. There really does need to be a standard.

Just my $0.02

-Turkey

Re:17

[pete-classic]

They use the same terminology when referring to kids with guns. Most "kids" that die from guns are 15-17 year old gang members

Not true. Most of the "children" (or sometimes "young people") in these statistics are 18-19 year olds (commonly known as "adults") involved in dangerous lifestyles (robbery, gangs, dealing drugs, etc.) or committing suicide with firearms that they legally possess.

While researching this post I found a very interesting article [iresist.com] that asserts that a given residential swimming pool is over three thousand times more likely to kill a child than a given handgun. This is an intentionally skewed statistic (there are more handguns than residential swimming pools), but it makes quite a point.

He also states that more children 5 and under died in 1988 while driving (not riding in a car, but driving it) than in handgun accidents.

-Peter

Re:17

[jhines0042]

I would suggest using the word Adolescent instead of Teen. Teen is too vague as eighteen and nineteen are still teens but in your definition would be "adults".

Just my opinion.

Read the Article (RTA)

[blankmange]

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....

Re:Read the Article (RTA)

[Khaed]

Wouldn't that be RTFA?

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.

You're kidding!

[InterruptDescriptorT]

when we shot the girls they were over the age of 18

What? They have to be of age to be murdered? What is this country coming to? ;-)

(tongue firmly in cheek)

Re:child porn

[Telastyn]

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.

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.

Try again

[drew_kime]

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:

• 14-year-olds are suspended [worldnetdaily.com] from school for taking a knife away from a suicidal classmate -- "He was in posession of it."
• 10-year-old girls are suspended [thisistrue.com] for sexual harassment for asking boys on the playground, "Do you like me?"
• 6-year-olds are suspended [thisistrue.com] from school for giving a friend a lemon drop -- "It looked like a drug!"

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.)

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 [thisistrue.com] 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.

Re:Okay, how about a non-school examples

[maxpublic]

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

Re:child porn

[Rogerborg]

• Law cannot be 'up for interpretation'. This is why the drinking age is 21, why the pr0n age is 18

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.

Re:laws written by amateurs are worse

[Rogerborg]

• You WANT laws to be written by lawyers, or at least people with a good legal sense [...] Tbe problem is when you have lawyers thinking they should act as gatekeepers to the legal system

All of which stems from having binary verdicts and "beyond all reasonable doubt" conditions. Lawyer (in which I include judges) argue technicalities. They don't argue about what did or didn't happen, or about right and wrong. They argue that their clients are law abiding, and that's a completely separate and largely irrelevant issue.

That's the problem. Not bad laws, but a bad system that places laws above facts.

There are no circumstances that I can think of where I wouldn't rather handle my own case in front of a jury of my peers and have then come to a consensus greyscale decision based on balance of probabilities. It's only when you have a lawyer instructing and feeding the jury, and arguing over what's admissable and what isn't, that the system becomes farcical and self serving.

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.

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

[Derkec]

I believe that in most states an 18 year old can have sex with a 17 year old legally. A 30 year old could not do the same. These laws tend to say something to the effect that if either partner is under-age there can not be more than a 2-5 year age difference between the partners.

It's far worse than that

[coyote-san]

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.

Re:child porn

[TheAJofOZ]

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.

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).

Re:child porn

[Rogerborg]

• Girls under 18 should not ever be depicted in Porn. Period.

And on their 18th birthday, a binary switch flips, and it becomes absolutely fine and moral? You've never had any worries that any 18 year olds might have been manipulated into it? You've never suspected that a girl is using fake ID, but consoled yourself with the thought that she seems pretty confident and self assured?

18th birthday is a completely artificial date. Why not 16? Or 21? Or nineteen years, four months, and seven days? What's so magic about 18?

I'd rather that we got rid of this silly notion of "age of consent". It's a cosy way to abrogate social responsibility and sweep the problem under the carpet, to say "At this point, we stop protecting you". What we need is a social and justice system that actually protects people before a "beyond all reasonable doubt" crime is commmited. That means protection from stalking, domestic abuse, child abuse, any kind of abuse where someone has or tries to take power over anyone else.

contradictions?

[PsiPsiStar]

It's not a contradiction. Kids don't completely lack the ability to make decisions that would last the rest of their lives. But they can't be counted on to do so, and we can't be assured that noone will attempt to exploit minors if it were legal to do so. How is that contradictory?

yucky subject...right decision, BUT...

[Em Emalb]

It is still wrong. Some wacky bastard getting off on a little kid naked disgusts me.

Ok, so it was too broad. Please try again. I would like to see what the ratio of sickos looking at digital kiddie porn to actual molestation/assualt is.

This is one case I believe should be hammered on until it gets passed (in a cleaner/clearer form.) I cannot possibly think of any legit reason for the existance of this stuff.

Filthy.

Re:yucky subject...right decision, BUT...

[the_2nd_coming]

if they look at it or not, they still think about it.

what do you want? to make it illegal to think about it?

and what ever the ratio is, they will still be out there preying on children whether or not they get to blow a load on there TV screen or magazine .

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:yucky subject...right decision, BUT...

[osgeek]

I cannot possibly think of any legit reason for the existance of this stuff.

Because some sick bastards like it, and if those sick bastards aren't including any actual children in the creation of it, so whom are they actually hurting? Who are we to say that they can't have it?

I wish that everyone would just get their god damned noses out of other peoples' business.

Re:yucky subject...right decision, BUT...

[liquidsin]

This is exactly the kind of reply that pisses me off. To see this on slashdot blows my mind. If this were about the government trying to raise the age for drivers licenses or drinking age or trying to impose digital rights management everyone would be all up in arms. But when it comes to something "yucky", well then it's ok.

I cannot possibly think of any legit reason for the existance of this stuff.

How often have we heard this argument for violence in video games? Just because it's not your thing, you think it has no place in the world. When it's a video game, it's ok because, as we all know, it doesn't make us really want to kill people just because we can run them over on screen in GTA3. But those wacky people who see sex on a tv, that makes them run right out to fuck anything that moves. Nevermind that the evening news runs stories about rapists all the time, but have you ever seen anyone watch the eleven o'clock news and say "you know what...that rape looks like a good deal...I gotta get me some o' that". That's why the laws in this country are so fucked up. Laws and morals are NOT the same thing. There's a case in Canada right now where an author who writes about child pornography is being brought up on criminal charges. How exactly is a fictitious novel about sex with a minor any different than a fictitious novel about fighting an evil empire in a galaxy far far away? Laws should be based solely on whether or not someone is being harmed by these acts. Writing a book about sex with a minor hurts nobody. Filming a four year old having sex harms the four year old, and thus should be illegal. Plain and simple. Filming a 22 year old (dressed like a school girl and trying to pass for 17) having sex harms nobody, so long as it's all consensual and what-not, and therefore should be legal. If this keeps up, we'll replace judge and jury with a fucking focus group to decide what Bill and Jane Middleamerica deem acceptable for the rest of us.

This act was a load of crap...

[MonkeyBot]

Congress justified the wider ban on grounds that while no real children were harmed in creating the material, real children could be harmed by feeding the prurient appetites of pedophiles or child molesters.

Following this logic, we should ban all violent murder scenes from video games and movies because they might feed the prurient appetites of murderers, and we should ban all drug references from movies because they might feed the prurient appetites of drug offenders.
I DEFINITELY don't think that child pornography should be allowed, but there has got to be a better, more logical approach than a blanket law like this that would allow ultra-conservatives to have the last say on whether or not we get to do things like watch American Beauty and other movies like that.

perhaps a better law......

[the_2nd_coming]

before congress can make any new laws, they must get lawenforcement to have a 85% arest rate on current violaters of current laws.

perhaps that would keep retarded legislation that removes MY rights from being implimneted.

Lets think about this a sec

[quantaman]

When it comes to techies discussion encryption and security standards the first ammendment goes out the window. However virtual kiddie porn is less dangerous(?) and is protected by the first ammendment?!? Why do I get the feeling that we're getting screwed over(no pun intended).

Re:Lets think about this a sec

[the_2nd_coming]

child pornn is not protected, but free speech was reduced by this law becasue the law was overly broad, meaning it steped on the toes of activities that are legal.

To all the surprised and disgusted readers:

[InterruptDescriptorT]

Imagine if Congress enacted a law that made it a crime to possess a file that 'appears to be' or 'conveys the impression' that it was obtained illegally (i.e. a hacker group added a scroll logo, like in the old-school days).

How would that affect, for example, the legitimate and active demo scene?

Of course the law is unconstitutional. 'Appears to be' and 'conveys the impression' are not valid legal standards to apply to anything. The law was struck down because it was too vague, and while you may think it is a victory for child pornographers and thus is a 'bad' decision and 'wrong', it's not. It's a victory for the Constitution.

Remember, apply the same priniciples to another medium. Digital music, computer software. Now it becomes clear, doesn't it?

Re:To all the surprised and disgusted readers:

[rhizome]

Of course the law is unconstitutional. 'Appears to be' and 'conveys the impression' are not valid legal standards to apply to anything. The law was struck down because it was too vague, and while you may think it is a victory for child pornographers and thus is a 'bad' decision and 'wrong', it's not. It's a victory for the Constitution.

Not only that, but laws which define crimes in aesthetic terms are a hallmark of fascism. It's not just that the language was vague, but that enforcement hinges upon undefinable terms. How does one define illicit appearance? A criminal impression? Hideously, those definitions boil down to political stances.

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.

Kite

[cryptochrome]

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.

Re:R&J

[armb]

> The play has Juliet as a 12 year old

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:QZM 7PNsyjrwC: www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/love-in-the-arts/romeo.ht ml+Romeo+Juliet%27s+age&hl=en&client=googlet
(And maybe bits of it were written before he made the change and not revised?).

I wonder

[DrSkwid]

if I took pictures of myself masturbating when I was 14, is it ok for me to sell them now I'm 30?

No

[wiredog]

Because the picture is of a 14 year old.

Re:No

[DrSkwid]

now that would be weird

be prosecuted for having child porn of yourself taken by yourself and never shown to anyone else until the day someone found it and showed the cops!

Two points...

[fruey]

On Photoshop-faked child porn (I hope GIMP isn't used for this):
The law was an expansion of existing bans on the usual sort of child pornography. Congress justified the wider ban on grounds that while no real children were harmed in creating the material, real children could be harmed by feeding the prurient appetites of pedophiles or child molesters.

Pedophiles (sic) thus have their appetite fed by faked kiddie porn? Well all those fakes of Anna Kournikova never wet my whistle for real porn... desire for real porn is just there :)

On the act:
prohibiting the possession and viewing of child pornography will encourage the possessors of such material to rid themselves of or des troy the material, thereby helping to protect the victims of child pornography and to eliminate the market for the sexual exploitative use of children;

Sorry? Because it's against the law to abuse children, I don't believe that stops them. Even less a law against pornography. After all, banning alcohol just increased consumption, and in countries where porn is illegal (like the one I happen to inhabit) it just raises the price for crap porn which really exploits the subjects.

I do totally agree, however, that Kiddie porn should be banned, it should never exists, it is repugnant and vile. But the law is not going to help sick people who abuse children...

Incidentally, where I live (Morocco) it is socially acceptable (for the natives) in some villages to offer young girls for sex to tourists. Young boys too. The law can't do squat in remote places anyway.

The right decision

[Rorschach1]

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.

Tough Decision

[Razzak]

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.

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 /. group will take.

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.

New slashdot poll!

[Maskirovka]

Possible side effects for this ruling

1)stocks in 3d imaging companies such as Alias|Wavefront and Bryce are expected to rise considerably in the comming weeks due to new demand for their imaging products.

2)Several colleges are drafting new marketing and graphic design majors to help the industry meet the pedophile's needs.

3)Playkid productions has incorporated and is considering an IPO.

4)Several grass-roots pedophile organizations are starting to make noise.

5)Thinkgeek says that this will have no immediate affect on their product line.

6)Next slashdot poll will be "what to do with a pedaphile if you catch one."

6)You don't want to KNOW what Michael Jackson is doing.

7) Cowboy Neal doesn't like kids.

Overbroad: ie Fast Times at Ridgemont High

[Carbino]

Fast Times at Ridgemont High: Jennifer Jason Leigh's character, Stacy, is a minor (17 I believe). Takes off her shirt in the baseball dugout to finally 'do it' with "Ron Johnson". This can hardly be considered child pornography. I believe under this act, it would be. Unless it is on TNT and isn't actually watched by anyone since the censors pretty much took out everything.

Kudos to the Supremes

[hubbabubba]

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.

Re:Kudos to the Supremes

[BCoates]

Reading their opinion, it looked to me that they didn't think it was impossible to enforce the law in a constitutional way--that is, it should be decided on a case-by-case basis instead of just striking down the law. Note that even getting the supreme court to *consider* striking down a law on it's face (as opposed to ruling that under one set of circumstances, the law is being applied unconstitutionally) is pretty rare, so they might have sided with the defendants if anyone was prosecuted under the law.

--
Benjamin Coates

While i dont like child porn, i agree with this

[HanzoSan]

People should be free to express themselves anyway they want

Virtual child porn isnt harming any chilren so it should be legal.

In fact it will protect children because children wont need to be harmed anymore due to the virtual child porn.

Understandably.

[FunkSoulBrother]

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.

Re:Understandably.

[BCoates]

So by your reasoning, it is ok to yell fire in a crowded movie theater? Cause banning my yelling fire in a crowded movie theater would impenge on my rights. Never mind the people that may be trampled in the process.

Does that actually work? Can we get some random trouble maker to scream out "fire! the theater's on fire" and see if people actually panic and trample each other? Frankly, the example doesn't make much sense to me, and the supreme court decision it came from is questionable at best, as it was aimed at suppressing political speech (advocating objection to millitary service in WWI, if i remember right)

KKK members can't run around saying that all niggers should be tortured and killed

It is my understanding that they can, do, and get away with it. It has to pose a clear and present danger that someone will commit a specific crime, not just advocate criminal behavior in general (iirc)

--
Benjamin Coates

How to not post a knee-jerk comment

[billcopc]

Let me summarize for all the weak minds among us.

The law basically said "if it vaguely resembles child porn, or if we think you were intending to produce/traffic/consume child porn, then we throw you in jail just because we can".

Let's generalize to see how stupid this was : "If it vaguely resembles an act of crime, or if we think you were intending to commit a crime, we throw you in jail just because we can".

_NOW_ is it obvious enough ? Child porn disgusts me as much as the next guy, but this decision isn't so much about child porn as it is about basic civil rights. Innocent until proven guilty, someone should plaster that quote all over the parliament's walls.

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.

DeCSS versus Virtual Child Pornography

[Seth Finkelstein]

(What a subject line :-) )

There's been a few comments which ask, basically, why one can make filthy pictures but not good clean code. The difference is in the reason for the law. DeCSS and others are basically under property law. Whereas this case was about general goverment prohibitions for personal harm.

One might just as well ask why it's legal to swear [freedomforum.org], but one could conceivably get into trouble for copyright infringement if the choice of swearing duplicated a comedy routine.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

Nice of the Supreme Court to protect free speech..

[Lendrick]

...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.

Not only for porn

[antis0c]

But this is good for other "virtual crimes". If this had passed through, how long would it take the overprotective mothers of the world to rally up support for banning other virtual depictions of crimes. Will I go to jail because I virtually murdered a player in Quake 3? Or perhaps go to jail for selling drugs in Dope Wars.

Wired predicted this in 1994... in a fiction

[dreamword]

In the March 1994 issue of Wired (2.04), there's a speculative article about what the arguments among the Justices would be if such a case ever came up. Interesting to compare Samuel Gelerman's speculation to the real arguments in the decision:

Herd Not Obscene, by Samuel Gelerman, from Wired 2.04 [wired.com]

Virtual Murder Isn't Illegal

[puppetman]

Just check out Grand Theft Auto 3 [rockstargames.com] 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.

Debate over child porn

[mattkime]

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.

If Rhenquist had his way....

[gilroy]

... apparently any cop show could be illegal, because it is illegal to film "snuff films" wherein someone actually dies. You see,

Chief Justice Rehnquist said Congress saw a compelling need to extend the definition of child pornography to embrace computer images "that are virtually indistinguishable from real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct." (from the New York Times)

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.

How about virtual murder?

[Tim McNerney]

It should be illegal for anyone to simulate murder. That would take out a lot of our film makers.

Re:A Victory for Child Pornographers Everywhere

[z84976]

My priorities lie with justice overall and sensible laws that can be implemented and enforced without destroying the freedoms of the innocent. What happens if you say "you can't make cartoons that look like that?" By the same token you can now outlaw ANY form of expression that general sensibilities (or, more ominously, the sensibilities of the ruling regime at any given moment) find offensive.

I'm afraid that to call this "siding on behalf of the kiddie porn industry" as you state is a very naive, narrow minded, and downright IGNORANT assessment of the issue. Wake up, please.

Re:The whole act isn't gone

[SuiteSisterMary]

In other words, a completely innocent picture of a child enjoying a lollypop or licking an ice-cream cone is still legal.

Re:Good Ruling ?

[Rupert]

• People who sexually abuse children, whether or not they publish the photos, are criminals.
  
• People who enjoy looking at child pornography are sick.
  
• Child porn on the internet is just bits.
  

Bearing in mind the tendency of governments to ban tools with criminal uses (guns, DeCSS, Napster), I think it's a good thing that we're now one step further away from banning Gimp.

Re:Good Ruling ?

[dboyles]

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.

Good God Man!

[wiredog]

Think of the cartoons! All those poor defenseless anime children forced into sexual slavery at the stroke of a pen!

Re:Good Ruling ?

[Tjp($)pjT]

"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.

Re:Good Ruling ?

[TheAJofOZ]

So people who watch robberies in movies become people who want to become robbers? Very flawed logic.

Careful, taking a logical derivation and applying it to a different problem, no matter how related that problem may seem may render the logic incorrect. Robbery and child abuse are different in so many ways. The biggest being that the majority of people don't need nor want to become a robber (there is no initial desire), whereas people who look at child pornography tend to have an initial desire. Does this make a difference, I don't know, but it may and it highlights the fact that you must argue this in terms of child abuse, not robbery because the situations are different.

Enforce the laws against child explotation to the fullest, make the penalties tougher

What makes you think that and is there any evidence that this is the case? Here's some complete heresay reasoning to give people somewhere to start researching. I have been informed by a friend who was studying the effectiveness of Australia's reform system (read: jails) and who had a real passion for solving these problems. Her comment was that in countries where the punishments were very lenient, the crime rate was lower and there were fewer reoffenders. I also have a comment from a tourist to Dubai that punishment was either deportation or death (I have a feeling that was exaggerated a little) and that there was virtually no crime. Perhaps both ways work and the only wrong answer is to sit in the middle ground. I don't know, but don't assume that harsher punishments will help.

never, never, never believe the government is your babysitter and will protect you from all the ills of the world

Agreed. Parents should take care of and protect their children (including educating them about these things - "if anyone touches you in a way you don't like, tell them no and tell me straight away" and similar speeches), and people should be responsible for their actions (including realising that sex makes babies and that contraception is not 100% effective). If you are having sex make sure you're prepared to take care of the child and protect them like a parent should.

It just won't happen, and selective enforcement will put your liberties at risk.

Australia and America both have selective enforcement on various issues. You Americans (or /.ing Americans at the least) seem to be quite upset, but we Australians seem to be happy with the way it's working. I'm not saying your wrong, but your not right just because you state it, you need to back it up.

All in all, you make some good points and they appeal to the kind of thinking that is prevalent on /. but be careful not to believe the rhetoric that "the /. collective concious" produces, just as you should be careful not to believe the rhetoric that the government puts out. Finally, I realise I haven't backed anything up in this post, it's merely intended to suggest other views that may or may not be correct.

That isn't what freedom is about.

[enkidu]

I guess we should have arrested Nabakov for writing Lolita. When you rob a store you are doing damage to someone else. When I read Lolita or look at a Playboy or what have you, whom am I hurting? When you go work on your marksmanship, whom are you hurting? One of the fundamental principles behind our freedom is the freedom to be let alone. That's why robbing a store is illegal, whatever the tools. That's also why child pornography is illegal, because it damages the children involved.

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

Virtual child porn PREVENTS real child abuse

[HanzoSan]

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

Re:Virtual child porn PREVENTS real child abuse

[LowellPorter]

I disagree. This may protect some children from child porn, however "virtual" child porn will still feed a pedophiles sexual desire. It will make him more likely to seek some sort of sexual encounter with a child. "Virtual" child porn may protect children from being in pornography, but it won't help the ones who get molested by people who feed off of it.

But is saving a "virtual child"

[sheyal]

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!

An Essay About Child Pornography:

[Chasing Amy]

Here's an essay I wrote about child pornography--not the virtual type, the real type. I wrote this essay not because I support the production of child porn--I don't, and I neither have nor want any--but because of my philosophical principles. I believe in straightforward, absolute freedom to do anything which does
not cause direct, measurable harm to another human being. I believe that once you start making exceptions, even if you think they're for a good purpose, you've irrevocably ruined the foundations of freedom. Either somehing causes harm, or doesn't--if it's morally objectionable, but causes no harm, then it should still be permissible.

Those are my libertarian precepts and I stick to them. This essay was posted to USENET inresponse to a thumper who was droning on about how he was an evil evil person for viewing pictures of nude young girls. It's even more applicable now in the case of virtual child porn, where no children were harmed in the making.

*Why Viewing Child Pornography Isn't Inherently "Bad"*

You know, just looking at images harms no one. Images are not actions,
they are mere information, binary ones and zeros just like anything else in
cyberspace. There is a huge difference between passively looking at an
image and actively doing whatever an image may depict.

An image is not good or bad. It may depict something good or bad, but the
image is neutral. Images depicting torture and genocide have won Pulitzer
Prizes and other awards, and are not considered illegal or evil just
because what they depict may be illegal or evil. We do not feel remorse
for looking at images, even if they depict horrors such as the famous photo
of the nude Vietnamese woman running from her burning village as her flesh
is melting. This is because the image just shows a moment in time; we are
not responsible for that moment just because we have seen a representation
of it.

So, if you have been looking at images of children in sexual and possibly
abusive situations, then why should you feel bad for it? That
moment would have happened whether or not you looked at the image 20 years
or 20 minutes after whatever happened, happened. You are no more
responsible for that moment just because you saw an image of it, than I am
responsible for war crimes for looking at that famous image of a North
Vietnamese man with a gun to his head, crying as he was about to be
executed. And what if you enjoyed looking at an image of a girl in a
questionable situation? You have no more engaged in the situation than I
have engaged in the situation whenever I watch Annette Haven get reamed in
the classic porn film *Co-Ed Fever*--although I wish it were me reaming
Annette Haven, but I digress. ;-)

The fallacy so many people--particularly overzealous LEA--fall for is
believing that child pornography promotes child abuse. But it's untrue,
and a notion founded entirely on emotive propaganda not fact. As I said,
the things depicted in images would go on whether or not you view the
images. Do you really think a child molester would stop molesting if no
one would look at his pictures? Of course not; most child molesters do
what they do without posting images on the Net. The motivation is primal,
sexual, and the images are mostly for his own enjoyment, and sharing them
with others is entirely secondary. So where is the harm if someone sees
such an image and is excited by it? They are not vicariously contributing
to the scene depicted--that would have happened no matter what.

Another argument some make is that seeing child pornography may make people
more likely to emulate what is depicted. Well, that argument is quite
groundless. In a society which condems adult-child sex as much as ours
does, no one is going to think sex with children is OK just because they
run across, or even collect, some pictures of it. Do people who see that
picture of a Vietnamese man with a gun to his head suddenly start thinking
that it's okay to go around killing people? Heck, our films and television
shows and video games are laden with more pure violence than ever before,
and despite right-wing propaganda and rhetoric, the Justice Department's
own aggregate statistics say that violent crimes among teenagers--surely
the most impressionable demographic--have been on the decline overall for
10 years. The only thing that causes people to think there's a problem is
media exploitation--the media broadcasts disproportionately about crimes
involving youngsters because it increases their ratings. The statistics
show the truth. Likewise with child porn--people believe it's a problem
because the media tells them so. But the reality is that no one is going
to go out and have sex with a 10 year old just because they see it in a
picture or film. Would you go out and have sex with a dog if you see that
on film? Of course not, unless it were something you were going to go out
and do anyway.

That last statement is the key. There is *no* causal link between child
porn and sex with children; the only reason some people may think so is
based on the fact that the type of people who would collect child porn are
the type of people who are attracted to children sexually in the first
place. So, naturally a percentage of them are going to have sex with
children; the child porn they may happen to possess is merely an indication
of their attractions--not a cause, an effect. And it cannot be denied that
child porn is for some pedophiles the same as adult porn is for some
heterosexuals--a release valve for sexual tensions, something to masterbate
to which ultimately decreases sexual desires, not increases them. Hence,
child pornography (in a limited, semi-underground form, at least) is good
for society, not bad, since it provides people who might otherwise seek
juvenile sexual partners with a healthy, inanimate outlet for those needs.

The other argument against child pornography, and the one most often touted
by law enforcement agencies, is that child pornography can be used as a
"recruitment tool" for pedophiles and child molesters who may try
to convince children that adult-child sex is OK by showing them such
images. This last argument is perhaps the thinnest, least believable,
because anything can be used for a nefarious purpose--just because plastic
baggies can be used to hold drugs, does not mean they don't have more
positive uses, or that they need to be made illegal. I'd concede fully
that child porn can and has been used in that capacity; just the other day
I watched a news program about a guy who used it that way. But regular
adult pornography is just as effective a recruitment tool, because people
interested in seducing young girls (or boys) don't rely on being able to
convince them sex with adults is all right--they're taught at school if not
by their parents that it isn't--but rather they rely on the youngster's
natural curiosity about sex and natural desires to do things that feel
good. Adult pornography arouses curiosity and desire in the potential
subject just as much. A child rapist is just going to rape, regardless of
what the child wants, so he does not usually use any pornography in finding
a victim, and it is not at all important in enabling him to do what he
does. Pornography is only really used in this context by non-rapists who
want to seduce or otherwise broach the subject of sex with children. This
can just as easily--if not more easily--be done with adult pornography as
with child pornography. It is also safer, since the adult can leave
regular adult pornography in places the child is sure to find it and wonder
about it, and if the child reports the porn to his or her parents, the
adult can make an excuse about accidentally leaving it in an accessible
place; the same is not true of child pornography, which the parents are
going to report if their child reports seeing it. My researches into the
subject (for a book, which may or may not ever get published) indicate that
adult pornography is used for seducing children far, far more often than
child pornography is. Therefore to blame such seductions on child
pornography is ludicrous, since adult pornography, which is perfectly legal
to possess, serves exactly the same purpose. In this context, child
pornography is not at all different from or more useful than regular porn.

If there are any other arguments for why merely possessing or viewing child
pornography is somehow inherently "bad", bring them up and I'll refute
them. Face it: the only reason you feel bad about looking at what you say
you've looked at, is a pathological Puritan guilt about sex. That's why
the U.S. has such a high rate of sex crimes compared to the rest of the
world--an unhealthy Puritan outlook on sex leads to an unhealthy sex life
and a potential for sexual pathologies.

Re:Virtual child porn PREVENTS real child abuse

[jejones]

There's a wonderful book on the linguistics of Japanese that touches on other languages in places. The original title is Kotoba to Bunka, literally "Words and Culture," but the English translation is titled Words in Context.

What does this have to do with the matter at hand? Well, in one chapter the author discusses in passing how Turkish romantic poetry goes on at great length about the beloved's eyes, and claims that this is because of Islamic restrictions on women's clothing--the eyes were all one could see! (He didn't go into whether there was a difference between pre-Ataturk and post-Ataturk literature, which would have been interesting...)

The point is, obsessed people will always find something to feed their fantasies. The children's underwear section of the Sears catalog or the Sunday paper Target inserts, Parents magazine, Sesame Street...you can bet that somewhere, someone's clipping those out of the paper and keeping a scrapbook or taping them and building up a video collection. Do we need burqas for children?

Re:Virtual child porn PREVENTS real child abuse

[Chump1422]

People don't become pedophiles, or more active pedophiles, because they are looking at kiddie porn

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.

Correct

[HanzoSan]

Saying porn makes pedophiles abuse children is like saying Porn makes males rape women, or porn makes women turn into sluts.

People dont copy what they see in porn videos, they watch the porn video to fantasize about what they could never do in the real world.

its the people who dont look at porn that you need to worry about.

Discredited.

[Chasing Amy]

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.

Re:Makes you wonder....

[Rahga]

AFAIK, just because the virtual material is detrimental, I don't think the courts are capable of putting it on the same level. In the real world, this type of material is outlawed because of harm to children. I don't know if the government will be able to make laws that can deter certain people from getting "an appetite" for one thing or another without a constitutional ammendment.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be, and I don't defend this type of content at all. I only defend the constitution.

Re:The way I read the judgement...

[Seth Finkelstein]

if it's lewdly pornographic it should be banned.

From the song Smut [virginia.edu], by Tom Lehrer

When correctly viewed, everything is lewd;
I could tell you things about Peter Pan, or the Wizard of Oz,
there's a dirty old man!

Very apropos.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

Re:Anyone notice Thomas != Scalia

[mmacdona86]

I think Thomas needs to recuse himself on anything related to pornography :)

Re:In Canada REAL CHILD PORN is sometimes legal

[Veritan Drelor]

That's not exactly the real significance of the Sharpe case. I'll just fill in the details for the non-Canadian types.

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_por no graphy.html