Quote from stevielynn
Roy - actually there was a case that the Supreme Court got involved in about child pornography.
[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The First Amendment and "Virtual" Child Pornography
[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]By Michael Landau
[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the Child Pornography Prevention Act, which made illegal certain computer-generated sexual images. The Court said the law violated the First Amendment. This article explains the historical background of legal attempts to regulate pornography and what the Court's opinion means for Internet communications.
I'm not sure this is the case that Rush is talking about - I'll go search his site. But, the Supremes did do the above.
I don't care if it is computer generated or actual kids - child pornography is NOT something our founders meant to be protected speech.
Truly sad . . .
I can see the argument for that.
Who is being harmed for it to be declared "unconstitutional" ? Using children in porn is wrong because a child cannot consent to sexual acts.
If "virtual porn" is unconstitutional - then virtual murders and killings a la movies and games are also unconstitutional.
Why, even using sex toys in videos (or otherwise) would be wrong - after all, how can you get consent from a machine?
Personal views on what is acceptable porn or not is irrelvent. The founders never even fantasised about the porn industry or video games for that matter - but that doesn't diminish their ideals any less.
One could argue that killing a child is just as bad as raping one. But nobody seems to have issues with horror movies where kids are murdered on screen. Nobody is harmed in the making of virtual porn - child or adult. Nobody is being forced to watch it - why is this even an issue?
And yes, before anybody thinks I am condoning child porn - please read my post again.