US Supreme Court on Pornography
-
Check it out! I guess you have to ask yourself: What problem is the law designed to address? 1. If the law was intended to stop exploitation of the children used to create the pornography in the first place, then computer generated child pornography shouldn't be a problem. 2. If the law was intended to protect all children from people that may exploit or abuse them as a result of seeing such pornography, then computer generated child pornography is the same as "real" child pornography and should be treated as such. My opinion: Since child pornography ("real" or computer generated) has no redeeming value in any way I can even imagine, I say err on the side of child safety as opposed to free speech and keep the law in place. Opinions? What are the laws like (on these issues) in your country? What should they be?
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
-
Check it out! I guess you have to ask yourself: What problem is the law designed to address? 1. If the law was intended to stop exploitation of the children used to create the pornography in the first place, then computer generated child pornography shouldn't be a problem. 2. If the law was intended to protect all children from people that may exploit or abuse them as a result of seeing such pornography, then computer generated child pornography is the same as "real" child pornography and should be treated as such. My opinion: Since child pornography ("real" or computer generated) has no redeeming value in any way I can even imagine, I say err on the side of child safety as opposed to free speech and keep the law in place. Opinions? What are the laws like (on these issues) in your country? What should they be?
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
Hmm, I don't see any problem with computer-generated child pornography. Otherwise, I see it as a cure. As long as it is restricted/not exists, you can't be sure that those "bad guys" won't take real childrens and make a shots. But if you make computer-generated legal, so what is the point to risk with real childrens, when you can make all on computer, and without any restrictions? Also the law about child pornography protects childrens from criminal, etc. So what the point to protect computer from criminal? :) Philip Patrick Web-site: www.stpworks.com "Two beer or not two beer?" Shakesbeer Need Web-based database administrator? You already have it!
-
Hmm, I don't see any problem with computer-generated child pornography. Otherwise, I see it as a cure. As long as it is restricted/not exists, you can't be sure that those "bad guys" won't take real childrens and make a shots. But if you make computer-generated legal, so what is the point to risk with real childrens, when you can make all on computer, and without any restrictions? Also the law about child pornography protects childrens from criminal, etc. So what the point to protect computer from criminal? :) Philip Patrick Web-site: www.stpworks.com "Two beer or not two beer?" Shakesbeer Need Web-based database administrator? You already have it!
Philip Patrick wrote: Otherwise, I see it as a cure. As long as it is restricted/not exists, you can't be sure that those "bad guys" won't take real childrens and make a shots. I think their logic is that the desire to see child pornography is a compulsive sickness that grows over time. If the sickness is fed, the individual seeks out more and more and will eventually seek out the real thing. I'm not sure I buy the theory, but I believe that is what proponents of the law(s) are saying.
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
-
Check it out! I guess you have to ask yourself: What problem is the law designed to address? 1. If the law was intended to stop exploitation of the children used to create the pornography in the first place, then computer generated child pornography shouldn't be a problem. 2. If the law was intended to protect all children from people that may exploit or abuse them as a result of seeing such pornography, then computer generated child pornography is the same as "real" child pornography and should be treated as such. My opinion: Since child pornography ("real" or computer generated) has no redeeming value in any way I can even imagine, I say err on the side of child safety as opposed to free speech and keep the law in place. Opinions? What are the laws like (on these issues) in your country? What should they be?
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
I can't believe they overturned that law. What a shame.
-
Philip Patrick wrote: Otherwise, I see it as a cure. As long as it is restricted/not exists, you can't be sure that those "bad guys" won't take real childrens and make a shots. I think their logic is that the desire to see child pornography is a compulsive sickness that grows over time. If the sickness is fed, the individual seeks out more and more and will eventually seek out the real thing. I'm not sure I buy the theory, but I believe that is what proponents of the law(s) are saying.
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
Mike Mullikin wrote: I think their logic is that the desire to see child pornography is a compulsive sickness that grows over time. Yeah, I'm with you on this, all pornography can be compusive or addictive. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
-
Hmm, I don't see any problem with computer-generated child pornography. Otherwise, I see it as a cure. As long as it is restricted/not exists, you can't be sure that those "bad guys" won't take real childrens and make a shots. But if you make computer-generated legal, so what is the point to risk with real childrens, when you can make all on computer, and without any restrictions? Also the law about child pornography protects childrens from criminal, etc. So what the point to protect computer from criminal? :) Philip Patrick Web-site: www.stpworks.com "Two beer or not two beer?" Shakesbeer Need Web-based database administrator? You already have it!
You think looking at pictures of child porn will make a pervert NOT want to have sex ? Does looking at regular porn make you not want to have sex ? I'm all for computer generated child pron, which emails me so I can go to the persons house and kill them. Christian The tragedy of cyberspace - that so much can travel so far, and yet mean so little. "I'm somewhat suspicious of STL though. My (test,experimental) program worked first time. Whats that all about??!?! - Jon Hulatt, 22/3/2002
-
I can't believe they overturned that law. What a shame.
The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on Tuesday struck down a federal pornography law that makes it a crime to have computer-generated pictures that look like real children engaged in sexual acts, ruling the law violates free-speech rights. I agree. We have this problem in Australia as well - the freedom of the criminal is often more important than the freedom of the victim. Did you ever see the film Cobra with Sly Stallone ? In one scene he covers a guy with petrol, throws on a match and says 'you have the right to remain silent'. I don't condone that, I thought the film was excessive, but it obviously reflected the frustration a lot of citizens feel over criminals 'rights'. Christian The tragedy of cyberspace - that so much can travel so far, and yet mean so little. "I'm somewhat suspicious of STL though. My (test,experimental) program worked first time. Whats that all about??!?! - Jon Hulatt, 22/3/2002
-
Check it out! I guess you have to ask yourself: What problem is the law designed to address? 1. If the law was intended to stop exploitation of the children used to create the pornography in the first place, then computer generated child pornography shouldn't be a problem. 2. If the law was intended to protect all children from people that may exploit or abuse them as a result of seeing such pornography, then computer generated child pornography is the same as "real" child pornography and should be treated as such. My opinion: Since child pornography ("real" or computer generated) has no redeeming value in any way I can even imagine, I say err on the side of child safety as opposed to free speech and keep the law in place. Opinions? What are the laws like (on these issues) in your country? What should they be?
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
I have no problem with them striking down a federal law, as the constitution technically only prohibits "Congress" from making laws affecting speech. What we need are stronger state laws against it and for the Supreme court to respect the state's laws as it is supposed to do. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
-
Check it out! I guess you have to ask yourself: What problem is the law designed to address? 1. If the law was intended to stop exploitation of the children used to create the pornography in the first place, then computer generated child pornography shouldn't be a problem. 2. If the law was intended to protect all children from people that may exploit or abuse them as a result of seeing such pornography, then computer generated child pornography is the same as "real" child pornography and should be treated as such. My opinion: Since child pornography ("real" or computer generated) has no redeeming value in any way I can even imagine, I say err on the side of child safety as opposed to free speech and keep the law in place. Opinions? What are the laws like (on these issues) in your country? What should they be?
Mike Mullikin If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick boxing.
I think the main issue was that the law was not clearly written. There were concerns that movies such as "Lolita" or "American Beauty" would be banned. The law might also have banned cartoon type animation (think anime) and parody works.