News: Child pornography laws in the courts

[DocWatson]

OUT-LAW.com: "US porn law quashed after nine year legal battle" (http://www.out-law.com/page-7904)

"A controversial 1998 US anti-pornography law that has been opposed since the moment it was signed has been struck down in a federal court. The Children's Online Protection Act (COPA) has been deemed unconstitutional."

(Continued at page linked above.)

More at Google News (http://news.google.com/news?q=Children%27s+Online+Protection+Ac t).

:::

The Christian Broadcasting Network: "Supreme Court Will Hear Porn Law Case" (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/126417.aspx)

"CBNNews.com - The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of a child pornography law.

"An appeals court ruled that the Protect Act of 2003 was too vague, that law had been used to convict a Florida man of promoting child porn."

(Continued at page linked above.)

More at Google News (http://news.google.com/news?ncl=1114812118).

[Leader Desslock]

My reaction, nearly verbatim: "So the precise implementation of the law was flawed. It was a badly worded law, it needed to go, and now it has.

That doesn't mean the intent of the law was invalid."

The point I'm trying to get across (for those that might've missed it) is that just because a bad law was written (and subsequently overturned) whose intent was to squash child pornography, that doesn't mean that the intent was flawed, nor does that fact tacitly condone the depiction of sexuality with minors; it merely means that the wording of the law was inconsistent with more significant statutes in our legal system.

I would welcome a better, more consistently worded version of any law that can be used to prosecute people who purchase, create, distribute or peddle pornographic wares (real or animated) depicting sexual acts with minors.

[grgspunk]

Free speech: 2

Prudes who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality (and are more likely to abuse fictional media): 0




...So there IS common sense in the world.

[Ken-Ohki]

It depends, I for one can see how people wishing to protect their children from pornography cannot these days because there's less restrictions on the internet. Even though I choose not to see pornography I come across pornographic images about once a week or so just from casual browsing on the net.

The question now is, are my rights to a clean environment for myself more important than your rights to post smut anywhere you choose? It's a tough question and I don't envy the supreme court from needing to find solution.

Oh, the first isn't about Child pornography btw, it's about children viewing pornography.

[Danzoh Katoh]

purchase, create, distribute or peddle pornographic wares (real or animated) depicting sexual acts with minors.

Real OR animated, huh? Hmmm... :( not sure I like that. But, I'm with you!!:D

I for one can see how people wishing to protect their children from pornography cannot these days because there's less restrictions on the internet

I come across pornographic images about once a week or so just from casual browsing on the net.

Ever heard of a filter? At my school there is a filter in place that blocks all that content; all of it trust me I know, I've tried.

The question now is, are my rights to a clean environment for myself more important than your rights to post smut anywhere you choose?

Right to a clean environment? I don't think I've heard that one. Mind stating where that is written? Also, you choose to use the internet no one is forcing it on you so either take the necessary precautions, stop using the net, or quit complaining.

[Ken-Ohki]

I apologize I suppose I'm not very clear. I'm basically a libertarian (though I vote democrat) which means I'm of the belief that a person is free to do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe upon other's rights to do the same.

I know people don't all generally believe such but I took it for granted that you would understand that the "right to a clean environment" though not expressly stated in the US constitution is nevertheless a basic human right. It deals with my freedom to do what I see fit and I believe it possible to be given that right without trampling on others rights to view pornography.

Quoted from wiki The term libertarianism usually refers to a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, as long as they allow others the same liberty.

[CrossboneGundam]

Free speech: 2

Prudes who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality (and are more likely to abuse fictional media): 0

...So there IS common sense in the world.

Yes, clearly, people who are against child pornography are just prudes who need to lighten up, and stop locking their doors at night already. :P

[grgspunk]

Yes, clearly, people who are against child pornography are just prudes who need to lighten up, and stop locking their doors at night already. :P

I said prudes who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality, numbnuts. :rolleyes:

[Danzoh Katoh]

I apologize I suppose I'm not very clear.... I'm of the belief that a person is free to do whatever they want so long as they don't infringe upon other's rights to do the same.

No worries, I get what you mean, but there is a problem with this:

you would understand that the "right to a clean environment" ....is nevertheless a basic human right.

Realistically speaking I don't think anyone has ever come up with a method of securing every person (or even a majority) with a "clean environment." I don't think it can be done, really. Thus, whether we have a basic right to it or not, it is foolish to expect it. Nevertheless, I suppose it's best to keep hoping and trying then to merely give up on your ideals. So, good luck with that.

[Raziel_MGS]

yea but we have the right to not have it pushed at us like what spam and other things are, which is what I feel he is saying

[CrossboneGundam]

I said prudes who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality, numbnuts. :rolleyes:

Just because you haven't acted on your urges thus far doesn't mean you're not a pedophile still.

[grgspunk]

Call me what you want, I was only pointing out your lack of reading comprehension. ;)



Oh, just in case you don't know what the word comprehension means(I can't be too sure with all the idiots in the world):

com•pre•hen•sion [kom-pri-hen-shuhn]

-noun-

1. Capacity of the mind to perceive and understand; power to grasp ideas; ability to know.

[DocWatson]

Would both of you please calm down? I started this thread for informational purposes (in part because there have been questions in the past about the legality of lolita complex hentai), not to incite a flame war.

[Soluzar]

Would both of you please calm down? I started this thread for informational purposes (in part because there have been questions in the past about the legality of lolita complex hentai), not to incite a flame war.
If you'll forgive me saying so, that was naive of you. Mention lolicon, and your thread turns into a flamewar. This is the immutable law of animenation. As long as the paedophiles are claiming that it's "perfectly normal" then that's going to continue.

[Solid_Snake]

Free speech: 2

Prudes who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality (and are more likely to abuse fictional media): 0




...So there IS common sense in the world.

Atleast they don't jack off to children. :)

[Langrisser]

Atleast they don't jack off to children. :)

Since when are "children" (human beings below 21/18/16 or whatever age applies in your jurisdiction) supposed to be equal to fictional, unrealistic images drawn by graphic artists and voiced by actors/actresses who are usually somewhere around 20-30+, all of that as part of a production chain where no actual children were ever harmed or even otherwise involved?

[Soluzar]

Since when are "children" (human beings below 18 or whatever age applies in your jurisdiction) supposed to be equal to fictional, unrealistic images drawn by graphic artists and voiced by actors/actresses who are usually somewhere around 20-30+, all of that as part of a production chain where no actual children were ever harmed or even otherwise involved?
The mental process taking place in the mind of the one who is masturbating remains the same, and that is what I believe Snake was commenting on. You may have noticed that there is a trend in most of the world to look down upon those who are sexually aroused by children, or by images of children.

[Bernard_Monsha]

Loli Loli Loli,

Locking this thread here