Wednesday, May 21, 2008

SCOTUS upholds virtual child porno ban

I suppose this makes sense: Fraudulent offers to provide child pornography are rulled illegal. There was no dispute that providing actual child pornography was illegal. SCOTUS was however over-ruling an appeal court judgment and the dissenting justices had some interesting first amendment arguments:

We read:
""The US Supreme Court has upheld an effort by Congress to make it illegal to offer or promote child pornography - even when the photographs being offered or promoted don't really exist or involve real children. In a 7-to-2 decision announced on Monday, the high court said the law was a constitutional effort by Congress to protect innocent children from a thriving form of abuse.

The majority justices upheld the law even though it restricted certain kinds of speech that critics said must be protected by the First Amendment. Instead, the high court said Congress had struck the correct balance in passing the anti-child-pornography law."

Source

Like some critics of the decision, I wonder why the offense concerned could not be caught by general laws against fraud. I suppose it is a matter of penalties.

6 comments:

Frederick J. Barnett said...

Like some critics of the decision, I wonder why the offense concerned could not be caught by general laws against fraud.

Who's going to try to buy child porn, then file a complaint when they don't get it???

Anonymous said...

unintended consequence: it will make sting operations against child porn customers far harder to mount.

Anonymous said...

Should child pornography drawings be protected by the 1st amendment?

Anonymous said...

it's not about child porn at all.
Under this law a photo or drawing is illegal as soon as someone interprets it as depicting a child engaged in activity that may cause sexual arousing (iow, if a child porn consumer might be interested in it).
The practice that's been going on for some time of arresting people on charges of child porn that make photos of their own children on the beach or in the tub is now officially sanctioned by the supreme court.
After all, someone who's interested in child porn would get aroused when looking at such pictures therefore they are child porn.
Also, a picture of a 35 year old woman in pigtails and a pink bikini might be child porn if someone decides that the woman might be mistaken to be underage and therefore the picture of interest to child pornographers.

Anonymous said...

Society has become sexually neurotic!

Birdzilla said...

A major blow to the infamous ACLU and its left-wing cuase