Child porn in a CGI world - legal question

[Ms Ann Thrope]

Child porn in all its variants is absolutely reprehensible. Whether it is a document of an actual act or a computer-generated simulation, it is utterly wrong.

That said, I see the issue here as one of free speech protected by the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The language here is intentionally vague; nothing specific is allowed or prohibited, and this has helped lead us down the slippery slope of censorship. Certainly there are cases where the exercise of said free speech leads to endangerment and criminal acts, and surely we cannot expect the First Amendment to offer protection in such instances. Censorship, therefore, becomes a necessary and unpleasant force.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether the defendant possessed a First Amendment right to free speech against the draft during World War I. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes held that Schenck's conviction was constitutional because:

"Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done."

Now, that particular case was not about pornography, but the substance of his opinion seems to be that if a clear and present danger is present, the First Amendment does not offer protection. And if a "clear and present danger" can be proven, the pornographer cannot hide behind the First Amendment.

So how does this apply to a CGI showing sexual acts performed by a child? Where is the "clear and present danger"? One could argue that an environment is being provided to foster the intent to commit such illegal acts, but that's it as far as I can see it. No crime was actually committed against any child.

 

[Inkara1]

Here's a scenario that just crossed my mind:
A police force, the FBI, or some other law enforcement entity makes some fake kiddie porn, posts it on the internet, perhaps even presenting it as real kiddie porn, then uses some sort of sting operation to see who downloads it. Then, said agency uses that as probable cause and searches people's computers.

Invasion of privacy? Efficient sting operation? Something else I haven't mentioned?

 

[Gonz]

Efficient sting operation

Since it has already been deemed illegal to possess kiddie-porn, that's the one. You aren't forced to d/l it so it can't be entrapment.

Where is the "clear and present danger"?

Good post/question. I'll have to dwell on it for awhile.

 

[freako104]

ow does this apply to a CGI showing sexual acts performed by a child? Where is the "clear and present danger"? One could argue that an environment is being provided to foster the intent to commit such illegal acts, but that's it as far as I can see it. No crime was actually committed against any child.

its not but the potential is there. i do agree its reprehensible. the reason for the vague writings in our Constitution is probably because it was meant to be interperted. however it is to say that it cant intrude on the rights of others and hurting someones kid is intruding on their rights. now kiddie porn real or not is sick. and anyone who views it is likely to hurt the kid either by molestation or by exploitation.

 

[Ms Ann Thrope]

anyone who views it is likely to hurt the kid either by molestation or by exploitation.

but until they actually do, no crime has been committed...you can't prosecute people because they are "likely" to commit illegal acts...and you can't convict someone for thinking about illegal acts... Hell, if you could, I'd prolly be festering in jail along with most of my friends...

 

[Squiggy]

You know...distributing kiddy porn is illegal too....Maybe we should lock up all the cops... I get a little tired of them figuring out ways to criminalize every citizen they can. I've downloaded things that, after viewing, seemed like kiddy porn to me. Wasn't my intent to find it but the tiltle didn't indicate that it was ...and it may not have been...But it sure looked like she was too young for me to feel ok about it....I've also downloaded stuff whose title would indicate young teens...only to find a middle aged woman or women in pigtails...Never knew age was determined by hairstyle.

My point is, I don't think the police should be allowed to do a 'sting' by distributing that shit.

 

[BeardofPants]

I could be talking out my butt here, but I seem to remember somewhere, somewhen, reading about how CGI kiddie porn was going to be legal as long as it was obviously CGI... Anyone remember reading this anywhere?

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Is it legal for an 18 year old (or older) actress to play the part of a minor (under 18) and get naked? even have sex on screen. and if so wouldnt that be the same concept?

 

[Squiggy]

Its done in the porn industry all the time TD...Thats what I was saying earlier. Sometimes the woman look like they're 35 and playing the part of schoolgirls or such...The legal and illegal entities in that business have and will always cater to EVERY kinky desire the market could throw at them..

 

[Professur]

One more log for the fire.

Think of this, coz someone else already did.

Take your average little kid. Just before puberty, you have several importand glands removed, or blocked with chemicals. Keep said child until legal age. Tada. A perfectly legal, perfectly kiddy porn kid.

BTW, a few years back I found a site (jap) selling preteen boy and girl blow up dolls. Haven't found it since, but I'm sure they didn't go outta business. Or how about the Real Doll? Wouldn't take to much to be making pint sized ones, would it?

All of the above are perfectly legal.

 

[Ms Ann Thrope]

what a vile place this world can be...

 

[freako104]

but until they actually do, no crime has been committed...you can't prosecute people because they are "likely" to commit illegal acts...and you can't convict someone for thinking about illegal acts... Hell, if you could, I'd prolly be festering in jail along with most of my friends...

you cant prosecute non crimes but it is a crime to have the child porn. shit wed all be in jail if it were Welles 1984. but you can keep your eye on them.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Take your average little kid. Just before puberty, you have several importand glands removed, or blocked with chemicals. Keep said child until legal age. Tada. A perfectly legal, perfectly kiddy porn kid.

You can legally cut parts out of/off your own children? can I have their toes removed so they dont run around the house and knock over lamps?

 

[Professur]

Whaddya think a circumcision is? All you need is a doctor willing to do it. And plastic surgeons are proof that there are enough of them around.

 

[Gonz]

what a vile place this world can be...

How true. In fact, it's so vile that some are willing to give up individual rights to put an end to certain practices. That is equally wretched. Having to become subservient because somebody doesn't know where the line of decency exists & the line of sordid begins.

 

[Professur]

How true. In fact, it's so vile that some are willing to give up individual rights to put an end to certain practices. That is equally wretched. Having to become subservient because somebody doesn't know where the line of decency exists & the line of sordid begins.

Now Gonz. It's not that he doesn't know. It's that his line isn't in the same place as yours. And you just said, he has the individual right to draw that line wherever he damn well pleases.

 

[Gonz]

Which has been the argument for over 200 years. One concluded line not to cross is the line of harm.

 

[Professur]

Gonz, really. You know as well as I do that no pedophile wants to hurt a child. And, since for thousands of years, a 12 year old was fair game sexually, they've got more precedents backing them than you do.

 

[Gonz]

A 12 year old was fair game at a time that the average age of death was 33. We were also able to sell our wives & children to the highest bidder. Murder was subjective (wow, that hasn't changed). Debtors prison wasn't a unknown entity in an old book.

Many things have changed, some good, some not so good. The fact that we're even discussing this contemptible subject, out of theoretical pre-text, shows how far we've come & how litle we've moved.

 

[Professur]

Truely.