On 24 Dec 2008 17:16:02 -0600, Morpheus <Morpheus@dreamland.com>
wrote:
>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..."???
for those trafficking in other than photographic or video forms ..yes
Unlike other countries.. the Ashcroft decision by SCOTUS that arrest
for possession and distribution of non visual and virtual pornography
violates pedophile's rights and "free speech"..has until recently
allowed them to operate with impunity.
However thru skilful use of Obscenity Laws and the PROTECT Act this is
fast being rectified...
>Are you on drugs?
No..that would be the children being sexually assaulted on camera
for your entertainment..
|
|