kat10

Saw this article today. Thought it might be good to ask for opinions. What is going on with American morals? Do you all think this was a good call by the supreme court? Here's a link to the article. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/index.html" target="_blank">Article</a>

In summary, it seems that the Superior Court is repealing a prior law on pornagraphy that shows what "appears to be" children (more accurately, teeneagers) engaging in sexual activity. Please read the article though before expressing judgements and opinions. Thanks

{Edited to fix long URL - Pantera}

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

ShabbyChick

My understanding is that child pornography is illegal because it is abuse/exploitation of a minor child. If a real child is not being abused/exploited, then what crime has been perpetrated? Whether the pornography contains a computer generated teenager or an actress that "looks like a teenager", no child has been injured in the creating of the said pornography. As the article stated, if *ALL* films, etc. that depicted teens having sex were considered pornography, then a lot of popular culture movies over the past 30 years would be considered pornography.

To specifically answer your questions: What is going on with American morals? Well, I think we've actually made great strides in American morals by changing laws that discriminate against race and more recently certain people adopting children. I think we're getting better the further we get from "biblical morality"!! I think it was a good call by the Supreme Court.

ShabbyChick

{Edited to fix long URL in quote - Pantera}

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

What does fiction have to do with "American morals?"

free12thinker

I think it was a good call by the Supreme Court. Unless we are "exploiting" our children to produce this pornography, than I don't see a problem. Too many times, we try to create law that goes against the sensitivities of our culture, as these sensitivities are weighed against tradition. Laws like censorship of music and movies, promiscuous sex, and pornography. But what wrong is actually being committed on viewing these images? Who is being hurt? I've heard arguments against this topic which stated that even though the images are not "real" children, there's a striking resemblance that leads to unwarranted urges towards children. Unfortunately for people who support this argument, the human condition is what it is. We do have desires, some of us stronger than others. Some of us have desires that stretch different ages, races; even species. But having those desires is different from acting on them, and in this case, giving access to pictures taken of consenting parties, even if they are rigged to look "younger", is a lot better than having someone with strong urges and no other outlet, to act on them in real life. And as I mentioned earlier, child pornography in itself is exploitation, I want to make that part clear. And because it exploits children, it is immoral. But when we start calling things that seem like it immoral, or things that go against perceived sensitivities immoral, we do so by creating an accepted train of thought that everyone must fall in line with, and that is not realistic. Morality is different from person to person, and the only things that are universally immoral are those which negatively impact someone else, beliefs aside. Child pornography does, imaged child pornography does not.

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: free12thinker ]

{Edited to... well, guess - Pantera}

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

MadMordigan

Freedom triumphs over tyranny. If this isn't american morals in action, I don't know what is.

Jerry Smith

I won't comment on the legal issue - it is a gray area to me. I want to speak up clearly though, and state that "imaged child" pornography is definitely immoral.

Its producers are capitalizing on the immoral impulses toward child exploitation that exist among those who desire contact with children, and in doing so they are encouraging the desire and the behavior.

In addition, as loathesome as he is, Ashcroft is right to point out that it will hamper efforts at prosecuting "real child" pornography.

I don't know exactly why the law was struck down -possibly it was too general in application. I would like to think that a similar law (one that would not contravene anyone's legitimate desire for expression) would be in some way feasible.

pug846

Jerry said:

The same way producers capitalize on the immoral impulses towards murder, robbing, etc.?

What is your beef here? It can’t be that you don’t think they should be able to simulate immoral activities on camera unless you plan on banning pretty much everything Hollywood puts out. I’ve yet to see really good evidence that watching a certain ‘immoral’ fictional activity on TV causes people to take part in that activity.

On a side note: I would love to jam my foot up Scalia’s ass. If he is going to take a kooky ‘literalist’ stand on the Constitution, he could at least be consistent with it. As he is found of saying, where in the constitution does it say that speech is only acceptable when it doesn’t violate community standards?

kat10

I'm inclined to agree with Free12Thinker. I do think that doctored child pornography, where real children are not harmed, is certainly better than one where real children are used to create these images. The issue of whether or not pedophiles can be "cured" of thought and desire has been discussed on the Sec Web before, and I strongly believe that they can't. It can only be controlled and managed so that the thoughts don't become actions. As with any addiction, it's a daily process and effort on the part of the addict. So if this is what is needed as a form of outlet for them and is doctored, it is certainly a better alternative. Hope that rambling of mine is somewhat coherent. I'm having a hard time getting this out correctly.

I don't believe in, let's sweep it under the rug and not address it. By suppressing this problematic behavior and disturbing/immoral form of expression, it'll die out. I think this is often the approach taken in American society in dealing with various social problems and is wrong, as has been proven by history. I'm specifically thinking of the current American drug problem and another example is Prohibition and it's ultimate failure.

The effects of these types of outlets, imho, needs to be further explored. I personally don't know if this ruling will be benificial in solving the problem, but I am hoping it's a step in the right direction.

Jerry Smith

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pug846:
The same way producers capitalize on the immoral impulses towards murder, robbing, etc.?

What is your beef here? It can’t be that you don’t think they should be able to simulate immoral activities on camera unless you plan on banning pretty much everything Hollywood puts out.
[QUOTE]

There is a big difference between Hollywood portrayals of immoral acts, and trading in child pornography whether real or simulated. The simulation is not a portrayal, but an attempt to sexually arouse an audience.

I hope you noticed that I mentioned that I had no real stance on the legality of the practice, but I firmly believe that it is a morally wrong practice.

To kat10, of course the simulation is much better than the real thing, hands down. I don't claim to know whether efforts to discourage or "cure" pedophiles have hope. I would think that with or without scientific studies on the matter we could all see the logic in avoiding encouraging their practice...

edited for grammar

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Jerry Smith ]</p>

free12thinker

[quote]Originally posted by Jerry Smith:
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by pug846:
The same way producers capitalize on the immoral impulses towards murder, robbing, etc.?

What is your beef here? It can’t be that you don’t think they should be able to simulate immoral activities on camera unless you plan on banning pretty much everything Hollywood puts out.
I hate to brake it to you, but Hollywood acts out portrayals (as you said) that attempt to sexually arouse an audience as well. They also attempt to excite an audience with calculated sex scenes and shock an audience with serial killers, but to most everyone who watches it, it's all for entertainment. And for those who don't look at it as entertainment, they are weak minded and unable to control their impulses (which by the way, we all have). So if an imaged sixteen year old excites two thirty five year old males and one of them wants to try the "real thing", guess who has psychological issues. But for every person with psychological issues to this degree, there are a million more level headed people who shouldn't suffer the consquences by being censored or unable to view things or hear things due to censorship.

Just as we can't always associate gamblers and drinkers to addicts, we can't associate "imaged" child pornography to pedophiles.