child porn - topical
Alexander Baron
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&cid=578&u=/nm/2
0020416/
ts_nm/court_pornography_dc_3
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on
Tuesday struck down a federal pornography law that makes it a crime to
have computer-generated pictures that look like real children engaged
in sexual acts, ruling the law violates free-speech rights.
The high court's 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy (news
- web sites), represented a stinging setback for the U.S. Justice
Department (news - web sites) in an important test of the
Constitution's First Amendment free-speech protections in the computer
age.
Kennedy wrote for the court majority that the law was too broad and
violated the First Amendment by prohibiting speech despite serious
literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
He said themes of teen-age sexual activity and the sexual abuse of
children have inspired countless literary works. He said William
Shakespeare in "Romeo and Juliet" created the most famous pair of
teen-age lovers, one of whom was just 13.
While Shakespeare may not have included sexually explicit scenes for
the Elizabethan audience, modern movie directors may want to show that
the couple consummated their relationship, he said.
Kennedy said a number of acclaimed movies, filmed without any child
actors, explore themes that fall within the wide sweep of the law's
prohibitions.
CITES MOVIES 'TRAFFIC,' 'AMERICAN BEAUTY'
He cited the award-wining movies, "Traffic," which has the high school
daughter of the nation's drug czar trading sex for drugs, and
"American Beauty," with scenes of sexual relations between a teen-age
girl and her boyfriend and a teen-age girl and a middle-aged man.
The so-called "virtual" child pornography law, adopted by Congress and
signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, made it a crime to
distribute or possess the pictures, even if the images did not involve
real children.
The law targeted advanced computer-imaging technology that can be used
to alter a child's innocent picture into a depiction of a child
engaged in sex. Producing or selling such pornography carries up to 15
years in prison while possession can lead to as much as five years in
prison.
The Child Pornography Prevention Act expanded a long-standing ban on
child pornography to prohibit any image that "appears to be" or
"conveys the impression" of someone younger than 18 engaged in
sexually explicit acts.
The law was challenged by the Free Speech Coalition, a trade
association of businesses that sell adult-oriented materials, for
violating constitutional free-speech rights.
Others who sued were a publisher of a book on nudism, an artist who
paints nudes and a photographer who specializes in erotic photography.
The Justice Department said the law sought to combat child pornography
in the digital age.
But Kennedy rejected that argument, finding that virtual child
pornography was not directly related to the sexual abuse of children.
He also rejected the argument that the law was necessary because
pedophiles may use virtual child pornography to seduce children.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites) and Justice Antonin
Scalia (news - web sites) dissented from the entire ruling. Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) dissented from part of the
ruling, but agreed with part of the judgement.
Rehnquist said the court should not construe a law as banning film
portrayals of Shakespearean tragedies without some indication from the
text of the law or the legislative history that such a result was
intended by Congress.
He said the movies "Traffic" and "American Beauty" were made after the
law was adopted. The law did not inhibit the movie producers from
including images of youthful-looking adult actors engaging in sexually
suggestive conduct, he said, in rejecting concerns by the court
majority.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/2634/ITMA.html
http://www.financialreform.20m.com/index.html
Stuart
<A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>High Court Strikes Down Child Pornography Law
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&cid=578&u=/nm/2
>0020416/
>ts_nm/court_pornography_dc_3
>
>WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on
>Tuesday struck down a federal pornography law that makes it a crime to
>have computer-generated pictures that look like real children engaged
>in sexual acts, ruling the law violates free-speech rights.
snipped >>>
Sounds like commonsense -we could do with taking such a view -I
could never see how made up pics could possibly equate to the
real thing
Stuart
---------
Remove YOURPANTS before E-mailing Me
Richard Bullis
Odd how the Court failed to make note of the most famous of all child
sexually related cases.
That of God, impregnating "Mary" who was but only 14 at the time.
Then, how does one determine the differences between a 14 year old and an an
18 year old?
A friend of mine is almost 50. She has the figure of a 14 year old girl and
not even five foot tall.
With at least one son I know of who is almost 20 if not more now.
Women like that could easily be mistaken, in the proper lighting, as a
child.
Another girl I grew up with never reached a heighth over 4'6". Yet is fully
mature in every way.
Place two females side by side, body measurements identical in every way,
including hair and facial features, how do you determine which is the 13
year old and which is the 18 year old?
I for one, applaud the US Supreme Court for ruling that the law was "broad
and vague".
Perhaps one of these days our lawmakers will write laws which mean
something, finally.
But does this mean then that artists, such as balthaus can continue to paint
items which show child molesting by adults as a form of "Freedom of
expression"? Or those hand drawings of naked little girls by such artists as
"stocke sturgis"? Sturgis was recently in court for allegedly importing
child pornography. The US Customs Bureau said his drawings of naked young
girls depicted actual girls. Even though the drawings in question were not
pornographic by nature.
But then again, the court was ruling on the constitutionality of the law as
it was written. It was not saying that it condoned such material in any way.
While the "puritans" and "moral crusaders" may find such dealings with
children IMMORAL, the fact remains that even today, many cultures of the
world have concepts which we find disgusting. That of a 14 year old girl
marrying. So at what point does a child become an adult then? It is when the
laws say they do.
"Alexander Baron" <A_B...@abaron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pSSm4tBo...@abaron.demon.co.uk...
Atticus
"Richard Bullis" <so...@wise.guy> wrote in message
news:uc30e0b...@corp.supernews.com...
> Freedom of expression rules yet again.
Rare, but welcome.
> Odd how the Court failed to make note of the most famous of all child
> sexually related cases.
> That of God, impregnating "Mary" who was but only 14 at the time.
Not unusual for the time, nor in many non-European cultures even now.
So I'm not surprised that it wasn't an issue. I wouldn't have expected the
US Supreme Court to have account of social culture and practice 2000 years
ago.
> Then, how does one determine the differences between a 14 year old and an
an
> 18 year old?
A birth certificate is the usual evidence in the British legal system.
Appearance is irrelevant, as a lot of imprisoned people have discovered to
their cost.
> A friend of mine is almost 50. She has the figure of a 14 year old girl
and
> not even five foot tall.
Then she's got everything going for her in this context.
> With at least one son I know of who is almost 20 if not more now.
> Women like that could easily be mistaken, in the proper lighting, as a
> child.
Except, of course, that those women do not behave like children, which is a
different issue from exploitation of children.
Having said that, if your friend posed for lolita-style photos, this might
still fall foul of section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (if I
remember correctly), which criminalises "pseudo"-child porn.
> I for one, applaud the US Supreme Court for ruling that the law was "broad
> and vague".
So do I, considering that most of its appointees are now by Republican (=
repressive, conservative) Presidents. It was interesting to see how the vote
split, politically. However, in the UK we could do with a provision that
would allow the courts to strike down "broad and vague" laws. The Human
Rights Act, and the treaty on which it is based, have too many op-outs, IMO.
> Perhaps one of these days our lawmakers will write laws which mean
> something, finally.
If you mean the UK, forget it. The Dangerous Dogs Act was a knee-jerk
reaction to a moral panic amplified, if not created, bu the tabloids. But
it's still the law, even though it hasn't been used that much. In a climate
of hysteria, it's very easy to get such laws on to the statute book. In the
cold light of day, no-one says "why do we still need this law?".
> But does this mean then that artists, such as balthaus can continue to
paint
> items which show child molesting by adults as a form of "Freedom of
> expression"?
No, principally because Balthus died over a year ago, but otherwise,
although his paintings have been criticised for their sexual portrayal of
children (and having seen them, my opinion is that they are no more
dangerous in this context than photos of children on a beach), they in no
way depict "child molestation" as you would seem to suggest. Even if they
did, they would be protected as art, as are the explicit constructions of,
say, Jake & Dinos Chapman, which have been neither banned not prosecuted.
Or those hand drawings of naked little girls by such artists as
> "stocke sturgis"? Sturgis was recently in court for allegedly importing
> child pornography. The US Customs Bureau said his drawings of naked young
> girls depicted actual girls. Even though the drawings in question were not
> pornographic by nature.
I'm not sure if you mean Jock Sturges here. Assuming you do, he is a
photographer, not a graphic artist. Furthermore, he is so highly regarded as
a photographer of nudes, including young girls, but so what?, that his work
was recently (1997) given a major retrospective world exhibition, including
the Museum of Modern Art in Frankfurt. I have the commemorative catalogue of
that exhibition, but have never heard of it being seized as child
pornography, or anything like it. It is, and has been, on open sale in this
country, even in such a culturally barren backwater as Bath.
> But then again, the court was ruling on the constitutionality of the law
as
> it was written. It was not saying that it condoned such material in any
way.
Of course not, but constitutional law is rarely (in isolation) concerned
with value judgements. At best it considers the balance on interests between
the State and the individual, in relation to freedom of thought and
expression. That's the core of this decision, because the US Constitution
attempts to set out that relationship.
> While the "puritans" and "moral crusaders" may find such dealings with
> children IMMORAL, the fact remains that even today, many cultures of the
> world have concepts which we find disgusting. That of a 14 year old girl
> marrying. So at what point does a child become an adult then? It is when
the
> laws say they do.
Precisely, but even though our own (UK) sexual laws have been brought more
into line with reality in recent years, they can still be out of date, and,
more so, can be used to protect "children" however litle they need
protection. The child porn laws in this country are such.
Atticus
Richard Bullis
"Atticus" <att...@tkam.edu> wrote in message
news:a9t5fk$d9c$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Richard Bullis" <so...@wise.guy> wrote in message
> news:uc30e0b...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Freedom of expression rules yet again.
>
> Rare, but welcome.
>
> > Odd how the Court failed to make note of the most famous of all child
> > sexually related cases.
> > That of God, impregnating "Mary" who was but only 14 at the time.
>
> Not unusual for the time, nor in many non-European cultures even now.
> So I'm not surprised that it wasn't an issue. I wouldn't have expected the
> US Supreme Court to have account of social culture and practice 2000 years
> ago.
Just pointing out that what we now find "immoral", was and is, common in
other places.
I didn't even mention the fact that a Pope had married a 12 year old girl.
Nor did I mention the fact that King Richard II married at the age of 37 to
a child.
As did many kings of the uk marry to children.
>
> > Then, how does one determine the differences between a 14 year old and
an
> an
> > 18 year old?
>
> A birth certificate is the usual evidence in the British legal system.
> Appearance is irrelevant, as a lot of imprisoned people have discovered to
> their cost.
I'm not speaking of anything other than similarities to each other and
determination by sight.
>
> > A friend of mine is almost 50. She has the figure of a 14 year old girl
> and
> > not even five foot tall.
>
> Then she's got everything going for her in this context.
You got that right. Many of the girls I grew up with still look the same.
>
> > With at least one son I know of who is almost 20 if not more now.
> > Women like that could easily be mistaken, in the proper lighting, as a
> > child.
>
> Except, of course, that those women do not behave like children, which is
a
> different issue from exploitation of children.
True. However, having been a child, they can play the role quite well.
In a video, the role could be spotted, but not necessarily in a still.
>
> Having said that, if your friend posed for lolita-style photos, this might
> still fall foul of section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (if I
> remember correctly), which criminalises "pseudo"-child porn.
UK or US? The US version was struck down by the courts as well.
>
> > I for one, applaud the US Supreme Court for ruling that the law was
"broad
> > and vague".
>
> So do I, considering that most of its appointees are now by Republican (=
> repressive, conservative) Presidents. It was interesting to see how the
vote
> split, politically. However, in the UK we could do with a provision that
> would allow the courts to strike down "broad and vague" laws. The Human
> Rights Act, and the treaty on which it is based, have too many op-outs,
IMO.
>
> > Perhaps one of these days our lawmakers will write laws which mean
> > something, finally.
>
> If you mean the UK, forget it. The Dangerous Dogs Act was a knee-jerk
> reaction to a moral panic amplified, if not created, bu the tabloids. But
> it's still the law, even though it hasn't been used that much. In a
climate
> of hysteria, it's very easy to get such laws on to the statute book. In
the
> cold light of day, no-one says "why do we still need this law?".
Yep. Even though there is no federal law here, local jurisdictions do enact
such items to protect the citizens.
One of the california beach communities has a "no dogs in the park" law,
valid on weekends and holidays.
>
> > But does this mean then that artists, such as balthaus can continue to
> paint
> > items which show child molesting by adults as a form of "Freedom of
> > expression"?
>
> No, principally because Balthus died over a year ago, but otherwise,
> although his paintings have been criticised for their sexual portrayal of
> children (and having seen them, my opinion is that they are no more
> dangerous in this context than photos of children on a beach), they in no
> way depict "child molestation" as you would seem to suggest. Even if they
> did, they would be protected as art, as are the explicit constructions of,
> say, Jake & Dinos Chapman, which have been neither banned not prosecuted.
FYI, an attorney who had a website by the name of alessandrasmiles.com, or
similar, had a painting by balthaus which depicted a woman molesting a young
girl. Nothing left to the imagination what was taking place. It is from that
site that I mention jock sturgis, as he represented the artist in the NY
court.
The NY attorney general got his butt kicked on that one, even though he had
his eyes on higher calling.
> Or those hand drawings of naked little girls by such artists as
> > "stocke sturgis"? Sturgis was recently in court for allegedly importing
> > child pornography. The US Customs Bureau said his drawings of naked
young
> > girls depicted actual girls. Even though the drawings in question were
not
> > pornographic by nature.
>
> I'm not sure if you mean Jock Sturges here. Assuming you do, he is a
> photographer, not a graphic artist.
Actually, he did both. It was his penciled art that caught the eyes of the
customs people.
> Furthermore, he is so highly regarded as
> a photographer of nudes, including young girls, but so what?, that his
work
> was recently (1997) given a major retrospective world exhibition,
including
> the Museum of Modern Art in Frankfurt.
The web site showed a variety of his work. If you wanted to, you could also
buy his books.
Not all were exactly nudes.
> I have the commemorative catalogue of
> that exhibition, but have never heard of it being seized as child
> pornography, or anything like it. It is, and has been, on open sale in
this
> country, even in such a culturally barren backwater as Bath.
Oddly enough, at the time of the court case, those same items could be
purchased through Amazon.com.
And I'm sure you could find them in any major bookstore like barnes and
nobles.
>
> > But then again, the court was ruling on the constitutionality of the law
> as
> > it was written. It was not saying that it condoned such material in any
> way.
>
> Of course not, but constitutional law is rarely (in isolation) concerned
> with value judgements. At best it considers the balance on interests
between
> the State and the individual, in relation to freedom of thought and
> expression. That's the core of this decision, because the US Constitution
> attempts to set out that relationship.
Precisely. The US Consitution was written to appease a wide range of
possibilities.
It was left up to the courts to determine the proper uses of the
"amendments".
Now why do you suppose certain items were called "amendments" and not placed
in the body of the constitution?
>
> > While the "puritans" and "moral crusaders" may find such dealings with
> > children IMMORAL, the fact remains that even today, many cultures of the
> > world have concepts which we find disgusting. That of a 14 year old girl
> > marrying. So at what point does a child become an adult then? It is when
> the
> > laws say they do.
>
> Precisely, but even though our own (UK) sexual laws have been brought more
> into line with reality in recent years, they can still be out of date,
and,
> more so, can be used to protect "children" however litle they need
> protection. The child porn laws in this country are such.
>
> Atticus
Thank you for the feedback. At least you have an open mind on the subject.
Unlike certain "moral crusaders" who detest anything on this subject.
>
>