US supreme court rules on online Child pornography
Protecting innocence
A US SUPREME COURT ruling has stated that anyone seeking or offering child pornography over the net can be prosecuted and sent to jail, even if the offered or requested pornography doesn’t exist.
The ruling is an important one for prosecutors who have occasionally had a hard time bringing peadophiles to justice, when no firm evidence of child pornography can be found in their possession.
The Supreme Court’s decision means that a 2002 ruling which went some way towards shielding Internet “virtual” child pornography was effectively nullified. That particular 2002 ruling referred to people who disseminated realistic but computer generated images of children performing sex acts. Those people then argued that since the pornography did not contain “real” children, they could not be prosecuted for child pornography, as they were simply exercising their right to free speech. The court agreed in 2002, but overturned the decision yesterday.
Supporters of the ruling welcomed the court’s decision. Patrick Trueman, a lawyer who led the US Justice Department's anti obscenity unit under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, telling the LA Times “You don't have to prove the underlying material is illegal. The criminal offense is the speech that offers to sell or trade in illegal material."
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia emphasised, "child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens." He added: "We hold that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment". µ
L’Inq
LA
Times
Comments
Anime
So does this mean that all Anime will need a disclaimer at the bottom "that the artist's drawings of female characters are all based on concepts of real live women over the age of 18"? :-pCheers,
John
3 months...
...is how long I give it before lawmakers scramble to add a provision that makes it okay for law enforcement to break this law in child porn stings.bad news for Second Life
There goes whole 2nd Life neighborhoods dedicated to virtual child bondage and virtual child porn.I guess the law occasionally does have positive side-effects.
In other news, I wonder how this gels with the FBI's new tactic of offering up fake links to non-existent child porn and arresting people based on "your IP address visited this URL, therefore you intentionally clicked on the link with intent to view child porn."
Sounds like the feds will be jumping for joy.
too much
might as well send 50% of america to jail because of misinformation.Guilty.
Right after the story about lieberman.And another brick is removed from the concept of justice, and another step closer to becoming exactly like the youknowwho's (yeah I'm referring to the muslims), not many more steps to go, if any.
“You don't have to prove the underlying material is illegal."
So the people creating computer generated, aka fake images, cartoons, drawings, renders etc, are being prosecuted for child pornography?What I got out of this is that they cannot prove the subjects in the pictures are over the age of 18. How could they? So any cartoons involving cartoon nudity would technically be considered child pornography, since you cannot prove what their age is. An nude person who cannot put forth proper documents of age is illegal according to the 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2257 which is required by the US government. These cartoons clearly cannot be held accountable since they are not real people. But this ruling seems to state otherwise?
I think this is where reality and the digital world have collided.
Japanese People Are Screwed
does this new law extend to hentai and manga online cause a lot of that stuff have cartoon chicks in it that look really young and usually take place in schools.Guilty of Fantasy?
I don't support child porn in any way shape or form. Never will. But to automatically find someone guilty of being a pedophile for simply even speaking of, or thinking of it is simply STUPID.There is something wrong with these people in their brains. If putting together some virtual kiddie porn keeps them from doing horrible things to real children, then so be it.
I can't believe even speech pertaining to pedophilia is automatically considered Guilt of the act. Welcome to NAZI America. Guilt for even thought now. This goes hand in hand with the (un)Patriot Act. What a piece of shit that is.
HI
So saying.. 'Can i have some child porn?' will now send me to jail? Am i going to jail now? Thank goodness I dont live in the US.What about homosexuals?
Could someone please explain to me why pedophiles get attacked as if they´re Hitler, while homosexuals are so accepted that they recently gained the right to marry in California?Somehow, I get the impression that this isn´t about children, or the rights of gays and lesbians, but destroying the Christian Church.
Yeah, pedophiles are absolutely unredeemable, and homosexuals are perfectly decent human beings that have the right to sexually please each other without paying any attention whatsoever to the book the US Constitution was inspired by.
As someone who has been treated for this type of sexual addiction, I can honestly tell you that homosexuals and pedophiles are in EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION AS ALCHOHOLICS, with the difference being the type of damage caused by the addiction.
This is bad
I'm no supporter of child porn, but this is BAD practice excluding things from the first amendment. Very bad. With this sort of ruling somebody could go to jail for making a joke. Weather it's in bad taste should be beside the point.What does this mean for Dateline?
Now its only a matter of time before the FBI does a stink on the set of the Dateline NBC series "to catch a predator"...to catch adults "offering" something from a child that doesn't exist.And hey, no making exclusions for law enforcement officers either, I'd hate to think they can "investigate" some person that I'm not allowed to "investigate" using the same methods.
Oh your god!
As Bender would have said it...And to the religious fellow: Wow. Your ignorance boggles the mind.
Virtual worlds more illegal than the real world?
So in most US states (and countries in the world for that matter) I can legally go out and have actual sex with a 16-year-old, but I'm going to jail if I take a photo or even talk about it? The child pornography laws have always confused the shit out of me!More fodder for prisons
This is a subject that is fraught with emotion. So much so that it is all most impossible to even discuss it rationally with out some one some where being offended. However here goes.I do accept that child porn, especially porn depicting sex with children is despicable. I understand that even though you might do nothing more than view it that act itself was part of a chain of events that leads to the exploitation of a child and there fore should not be allowed. I find it less believable that looking at a picture of a nude child is a bad thing. That is like saying that the human body is bad and should not be seen. If we adhere to the ideal that a simple nude is against the law half the art in the world will need to be burned. I find it utterly ridiculous to suggest that a drawing of any type that depicts an underage child should be considered child porn. There was no child involved at any point so it is impossible for a child to have been harmed. If I understand this law it means that I could be busted for requesting that someone send me a picture of a painting that happens to have a nude child in it. I guess this means that America is going to bomb the Louvre. I guess I had better also destroy that print I have of Madonna and child.
But really folks this isn't about protecting children. This is about providing fodder for the American prison industry. An institution that all ready has over 1% of Americans behind bars.
Think about it. Don't get hysterical because of the phrase "kiddy porn" The powers that be love to use this subject because it tends to promote non rational thought. The knee jerk reaction from everyone is that this is there to protect our children and any one that even questions it must be a pervert. So go ahead and pass the law. What it will do is make it super easy for the feds to bust any one that is online. Have you ever followed a link to a page only to find out that it was not something that you wanted to see? Sorry you can now be busted. Have you ever downloaded a file that was totally mislabled only to find out that it was something that could get you 10 to 20? I suspect most people have. What about those nude pictures your parents took of you 30 years ago when you took that trip to the beach? You were only 4 and your parents thought you were so cute running around on the beach nude. Are the feds going to search your attic and bust your dear old mom?
This is way to much power to give the feds. And while it may lead to the capture of some guilty people it will also lead to the arrest of many more innocents.
There is a word for this folks. It's called fascism.
Hi Joe
"HISo saying.. 'Can i have some child porn?' will now send me to jail? Am i going to jail now? Thank goodness I dont live in the US.
posted by : Joe, 21 May 2008 "
Sure, you can have some.
Shoot, looks like I'm going to jail, as I do live in the US.
Ok... but ....
I still haven't seen then go after the real bastards: child molesting priests.Is that a double standard?
@Anonymous born-again Christian
Dude, that whole concept gives the gov't way too much credit.They could care less about dismantling the Christian church. It's all about power and control.
With this law, it makes it easier for them to go after people and incarcerate them. That's all.
And they go after pedophilia and child porn because it pushes all the right emotional buttons to turn logic and common sense off.
"Think of the children!" you know?
Gays had their time of strife (think about when HIV and AIDS first became big). For better or worse, they are no longer the more attractive candidate for rousing the populace to willingly give up freedoms for protection from non-existent (or at least minimal) threats.
We've got "terrorists" and "pedophiles" now.
Back to the issue of the gov't attacking the Christian church, I think you are wrong. The gov't loves organized religion because they only have to compromise the leaders to get the flock to follow behind. It makes the populace easier to manipulate. "Opiate of the masses," indeed.
Don't get me wrong. I've been a Christian for over a decade. I read the bible and believe Jesus is my saviour and all of that. But I am not a fan of mega-churches or near-deified preachers being placed on pedestals.
Until it becomes more advantageous for the gov't to attack religion outright than to simply gain it's cooperation, we're safe.