On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:49:57 -0800, Brandon D Cartwright wrote
(in article <uo05l455a5qktiqaq39e0fr5pp64ql9d9n@4ax.com>):
> On 24 Dec 2008 07:24:01 -0600, "Fred Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Brandon D Cartwright" <user@example.net> wrote in message
>> news:2f44l4pekr69n0mnl1nsuakdp4g55noddt@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Virtual child porn's very real consequences
>>>
>>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_19_18/ai_87024964/print?tag=
>>> artBody;col1
>>
>> Pure unadulterated horseshit.
>> The Supreme Court struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act
>> because it was vague, overly broad and gave the government wide and
>> unfettered powers in determining what images constituted child porn.
>> As written the law could have been used to ban Romeo and Juliet, Lolita,
>> Blue Lagoon and other plays and films as child porn. The government
>> claimed, "Oh, no, we'd never do that." But when state legislatures
>> were trying to enact seat belt laws they promised that motorists would
>> never be stopped merely for seat belt infractions. But once on the books
>> the laws were quickly ammended to do just that.
>> The law's phrase "appears to be" gave the government wide latitude to
>> attack the adult porn industry since many adult porn models are 18, 19, 20
>> years of age and perfectly legal, but if a prosecutor claimed they "appeared
>> to be" under age then the photos or videos would be child porn under the
>> law. The law also provided that it was NOT an affirmable defense that the
>> model(s) were of provable legal age. The law was intended as a great tool
>> to attack the adult porn industry.
>> The Justices struck down the "virtual image" provisions since no real minors
>> were involved in creating the images. However, taking an innocent image of
>> a minor and Photoshoping it into a child porn image is still child porn even
>> though the minor never actually participated in making the image.
>> The idea of protecting minors is to prevent harm to real minors, not ban
>> ideas
>> or control thoughts which is what this law was designed to do.
>> Congress was warned the law was flawed but passed it anyway and it was
>> bitch slapped down as unconstitutional.
>
>> Live with it.
>
> I would rather carry on working to eliminate the US as a haven for
> child pornographers and producers of sadistic written pornography
> involving the torture..rape and murder of children if it's all the
> same to you..
>
> Arrests and imprisonments under other statutes *are* being made
> and will continue until the ruling is altered to bring the US into
> harmony with the rest of the world..
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Paul M. Rodriguez
>>>
>>> Researching our story about the recent Supreme Court decision
>>> approving "virtual" child pornography, we wanted to present a visual
>>> image that would bring home the horror of this outrage. After
>>> extensive calls to the top photo sources failed to produce anything
>>> that approximated actual photography of the kind still banned by law,
>>> we turned to the Internet. Brother, what a shock it was to see what's
>>> out there on the World Wide Web. And we don't mean just every
>>> imaginable (or unimaginable) version of hard-core porn, but even the
>>> innocent listings that often are attached to pornographic materials.
>>>
>>> Equally disturbing (and we'll explain this further on) were porn links
>>> that led through images and virtual graphics that seemed not to be
>>> pornography at all. In fact, a number of such "binary" sites we found
>>> with the help of savvy Webmasters were shocking because they began
>>> with the kind of harmless photographs and images of children that
>>> might be found in school yearbooks, family albums or Sunday-school
>>> bulletins.
>>>
>>> The importance of the apparently innocent pictures is, in fact, at the
>>> core of our laws against child porn, and it eviscerates the Supreme
>>> Court's extraordinarily stupid decision that says virtual images of
>>> children used as sexual props is okay because no crime against real
>>> children is involved and so publication is protected by the First
>>> Amendment.
>>>
>>> Pornography involving consenting adults invokes far different issues
>>> than child porn. Our society long ago distinguished the dramatic
>>> differences between the two and decided that the latter is aberrant,
>>> deviant, depraved and immoral. It endangers the safety of innocent
>>> children, which is why it is illegal. It harms children who are
>>> exploited foully to make it and it provides a potential catalyst for
>>> pederasts and other sexual perverts who may go from images to the real
>>> thing -- a crime in which victims often are psychologically crippled
>>> or even murdered to ensure their silence. Society simply decided that
>>> the risk of child rape being excited by this stuff is too great to be
>>> tolerated.
>>>
>>> Indeed, laws against child pornography are designed to accomplish two
>>> things: 1) protect children from exploitation for its production and
>>> 2) create fire walls to prevent such material from being obtained by
>>> wanna-be, in-waiting or impulse-driven child-sex predators who the
>>> courts, law enforcement, victims and even the criminals themselves
>>> claim are excited to act out their loathsome fantasies by pornographic
>>> images of children. The medical profession long has believed that
>>> those convicted of child-sex abuse are unlikely ever to be cured of
>>> their "illness." Some penologists claim there literally is a 100
>>> percent recidivism rate for pederasts.
>>>
>>> Which brings us back to those seemingly innocent photographs and
>>> images of children on the Internet. It puzzled us, so we followed an
>>> escalating trail of pornographic links with headers such as "virtual
>>> porn," "child porn" and similar variations. Not only were the
>>> pornographers baiting a virtual path to their hard-core sites with
>>> images of innocence, but whoever did this understood that their
>>> pederast clientele wants to pursue child sex by sorting through
>>> pictures of normal children. The search for the victim is part of the
>>> perversion that drives some to harm children.
>>>
>>> Unless the government case was completely incompetent, the Supreme
>>> Court should have known all of this, yet it ignored the prevention
>>> aspects of the law against virtual child porn that it struck down. In
>>> doing this the court brazenly and irresponsibly dismissed an essential
>>> ingredient of that law: recognition of the effects even virtual child
>>> porn has on encouraging potential child molesters.
>>>
>>> In conversations with some of the leading entrepreneurs of virtual
>>> technology we learned something else that the apparently ignorant
>>> Supreme Court majority overlooked. The industry already can create
>>> human images indistinguishable from images of real people and can
>>> animate them to do anything at all. Virtual reality is just that --
>>> images of computer-generated humans made to act in any way their
>>> creators wish them to behave. Check out the image from Final Fantasy:
>>> The Spirit Within that illustrates Kelly Patricia O'Meara's story on
>>> page 18. The virtual girl appears real in every way. The same thing is
>>> being done pornographically, we're told, with virtual children
>>> engaging in sexual acts -- children indistinguishable from real
>>> children to the pederasts, whetting their appetites for molestation.
>>>
>>> Indeed, we're told by medical and law-enforcement experts, molesters
>>> excited by child porn who attack children don't give a damn whether it
>>> is real or virtual when the one is indistinguishable from the other.
>>> Unfortunately, in its rush to judgment, the liberal majority that now
>>> dominates the Supreme Court failed to see the bigger picture. For that
>>> matter, it failed even to see the images of real and virtual child
>>> porn that are indistinguishable.
>>>
>>> Congress and the Bush administration are working to overcome the high
>>> court's blunder. Perhaps part of that effort ought to include a
>>> cyber-warfare agency that employs the military or intelligence
>>> technology now used to hunt down terrorists via the Internet. It
>>> should be a relatively simple matter to apply existing child-porn
>>> standards against the international child-porn terrorists and their
>>> client-agents who are waging a real war against our very real
>>> children. Our kids are the ones who are "virtual" targets of
>>> child-porn predators.
>>>
>>> Thank God we have the First Amendment. It allows us to say directly
>>> that the damned-fool Supreme Court justices responsible for this
>>> abomination should be horsewhipped.
>>>
>>> PAUL M. RODRIGUEZ IS THE MANAGING EDITOR OF Insight MAGAZINE.
>>> --
>>> " whenever the authorities uncover someone in possession
>>> of child pornography,they are also identifying someone
>>> who is potentially a real and active danger to children."
>>>
>>> http://www.csecworldcongress.org/en/index.htm
The "...United States (is) a haven for child pornographers..."???
Are you on drugs?
|
|