Pigs in Washington showing mercy to child pornographers!

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/2....ap/index.html

I used to have a low opinion of the US, but NOW my opinion of the US has gone even lower! If it were up to me, these Child Pornographers would NEVER see the light of day EVER!!!

The headline might be misleading. The courts said that pornographers have the right to put thier stuff on the web....then the finding went on to say the proper way to protect the kids is via the use of filetering software on public computers.

Ummm if you really hate the idea of kids getting Porn, you need to attack the Librarians Union, NAMBLA and I believe the American Federation of Teachers(AFT) who have all been leading the campaign for the free and unfettered access to the internet by minors. Definately not one of the issues you can pin on the conservatives.

[Seraph]

What exactly is your definition of a "Child Pornographer"?

The law has nothing to do with the production, or distribution of child pornogrpahy, rahter it has to do with preventhing children from having access to pornography.

[Aerich]

Ah, Whackmeister, did you get frenzied by the title of that article and just skim the rest of it? I got from the article that an anti-porn access (not necessarily child porn) law was too broad for the court's liking. The law has not been shot down entirely, but will be examined again in a lower court. Here's an excerpt from the article:

"In considering the issue a third time, the court did not end a long fight, however. The majority voted to send the case back to a lower court for a trial that could give the government a chance to prove the law does not go too far."

Free speech is an important issue. I know that porn is not precisely what democracies wish to protect, but the intention is to prevent arguments that could be used to limit expressions that are closer to the "core" of free speech. And before bashing the US too harshly on this one, take a look at how the Supreme Court of Canada has dealt with this area. Check out the recent Charter challenges to section 2, the right to freedom of expression. Our courts are very careful not to make any sweeping statements that could serve as precedent. Typically, WE have a similarly cautious approach to the problem, and we too, DO NOT condone child pornography.

If you want links to the Canadian cases, I can provide them.

[ 06-29-2004, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Aerich ]

[Melusine]

Originally posted by The Whackmiester: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/2....ap/index.html I used to have a low opinion of the US, but NOW my opinion of the US has gone even lower! If it were up to me, these Child Pornographers would NEVER see the light of day EVER!!!

Whackmeister on rampage again... what in the world does this have to do with your low opinion of America? Child pornography is not adequately battled in most countries, IMO.

Edit:
I do think the Free Speech argument has nothing to do with kiddyporn. I think it's sickening people are even considering whether they are obstructing freedom of speech when something as horrid as child porn is concerned. Free Speech should mean you are allowed to express any opinion you like, not that you should be allowed to take gruesome pictures of criminal activities and then spread them around, keep them on your computer and put them online.
Isn't it perhaps the case that this is against portrait laws? Because if you need the permission of those who are depicted, then free speech doesn't even *have* to come into the argument and it's illegal on other grounds.

[ 06-29-2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[Aerich]

Yes, free speech really has nothing to do with child porn. Our courts (and I believe ALL courts) have consistently and in no uncertain language shot down that argument every time it's been raised as a last-ditch defense.

Even if free speech DID have more than a tenuous link to such disturbing activities, the harm and abuse of children far outweighs the free speech argument. No question.

The article actually does not mention child porn at all. It mentions adult porn that is accessible to children/youths surfing the Web. That's a much different thing, as presumably such porn is made by consenting adults (we can discuss the truth and morality of that later). We've gone off topic a little. I don't think there's anyone here that would defend the making or distribution of child porn in the name of free speech; it is inherently ridiculous considering the protection we and the law MUST provide to children.

Well fortunately this has nothing to do with Kiddie Porn....it has to do with regular porn aimed at underage kids... And they decided they can't control regular porn (regular porn..is there such a thing?) so put filters on the public computers to stop kids from looking it up....in thehome, thats a job for the parent.

[Melusine]

Yes, I realise it's off-topic (I did gloss over the article) but I was responding to the Whackmeister, who I assume (based on his OP and on previous posts he's made on the subject) was talking about true child porn. But let's get back on topic then. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Aerich]

I agree with Magik, we can't rely on the state to protect our children (not that I have any, but...) from those sorts of undesirable images/influences. Public filters are good. It's not as if anyone should be looking at porn on public computers anyway. And in the home, parents should take the responsibility for filtering AND explaining. Nice if there's laws to help out, but not necessary.

I don't know what all exactly they're trying to block, so I don't know if I would consider it an impediment to free speech. Definitely block all the hardcore nasty stuff, but if they're trying to block (clean) sites dedicated to britney spears, that's not really practical.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

My opinions are far from traditional in most cases... but I do still believe that parents should keep tabs on their kids. And as much as I despise AOL, their parental controls can be quite effective... unless the kid knows what they're doing, of course. And if they're that smart, then there's little point in trying to protect them.

Note- Just because I'm trying to be realistic doesn't mean I'm in favor of pornography. I'm not. I hate about 99% of it.