This Just In - Virtual Child Porn Decision

[Brad Mitchell]

Thought I'd share with the GFY crew, just got an E-mail from Lawrence Walters ~

Brad

---------------------
Dear Clients & Friends of FreeSpeechLaw.com

The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled that the Virtual Child Pornography law (?CPPA?) is unconstitutionally overbroad! Attached is the court?s decision. This is a victory for the Free Speech Coalition and for the First Amendment. The court ruled that the law is inconsistent with the requirements of Miller v. California, which requires that materials involving adults must appeal to the prurient interest before they can be criminalized. Moreover, the CPPA provided for severe punishment if just a single scene of a movie contained a graphic depiction of prohibited sexual activity. This is inconsistent with the First Amendment which requires that a work?s artistic merit be evaluated as a whole, and not dependent on the presence of a single scene. The Court noted that CPPA in not supported by the traditional reasons for outlawing child pornography. The CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime, and creates no victim by its production. The alleged harm, future criminal acts by pedophiles, does not necessarily flow from the speech. Thus, the court held that where speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it has First Amendment protection.

More information to follow upon further analysis of the decision.

Lawrence Walters
http://www.freespeechlaw.com
----------------------

[B.Diker]

Child porn advertising is disgusting.
i've seen lost of Cp sites with hardcore pics , what the fuck is going on here . . .

with that law can they give a Stop to them ?

[GatorB]

Diker I don't think you get it. Weere not talking about REAL child porn. Wee're talking about fake child porn. If this law was upheld then ANY movie or TV show that has an actor over 18 that was protraying a minor engaging in sex could be proceuted.

[Gemini]

They need to revise the law so that it only outlaws drawn cp.

[Brad Mitchell]

Whoops, my error.

Didn't realize that there was another thread already with the same topic.

~Brad

[LoveAsianChicks]

Originally posted by Gemini
They need to revise the law so that it only outlaws drawn cp.

I respect your opinion, but that is the dumbest thing I have read on GFY, and thats including all the bullshit people post.

The laws regarding child porn are in place to protect children & punish those who abuse them. How on earth would a drawing harm real children?
real people in cp is worse in my opinion.

I'm not a fan of CP in any shape or form.
(real or fake) but I just think outlawing a drawing is absurd.

[Gemini]

Even drawn cp feeds the peds. So why give it to them? Duhhh.

[LoveAsianChicks]

hmmmm

[GatorB]

Originally posted by Gemini
Even drawn cp feeds the peds. So why give it to them? Duhhh.

I hope you were be saracstic because the same one that use that agument will say regular porn feeds the rapists. I guess if I'm crazy and while I'm eating my Frosted Flakes, Tony the Tiger tells me to kill my family, then it's Kellogg's fault for putting that demonic tiger on the box, right?

[Scootermuze]

Originally posted by LoveAsianChicks
However I have heard it is possible to make fake CP look so real that is almost impossible to tell if it is real or fake.

I think if it was something that realistic, the courts might just lean toward it being illegal. Even though fake, it would go beyond, 'depiction' in the eyes of the viewers..

I guess it would just have to be tested in the courts to know for sure. .. I sure wouldn't want to have it in my posession.

[LoveAsianChicks]

Same thing applies to fake violence.
"Some" say if you see violence you are likely to go out and hurt people.

No matter how many movies I watch like Rambo & shoot'em up films, I never have the urge to grab an AK47 and kill real people...well maybe the urge but I have control not to.

Anyway should they outlaw rambo movies because someone might go crazy and shoot others?

[Fletch XXX]

The law is not going to involve Hollywood movies or anything like that, that is done in a societally accepted manor.

The photos they are speaking of, are CP, just made in Photoshop.

Everyone is so quick to say, OMG they cant pass that law, that means every blah blah blah...this movie did this, and this movie did this...well read more on how CP is measured.

For instance, Fast TImes At Ridgemont High and Phoebe Cates topless scene, this measured agaist society does NOT offend the majority.

You take an altered pic of a 12 year old online, and that would/SHOULD offend ANY "average person in society" which is HOW obscenity is measured.

Ya'd think Adult Webmasters would read more about the legalities regarding these issues, instead of voicing incorrect opinions in regards to laws that apply especially to us... eh...*sigh*

If youre against this law in ant way, a big fuck you from SoCal.

[eroswebmaster]

Originally posted by Fletch XXX
The law is not going to involve Hollywood movies or anything like that, that is done in a societally accepted manor.

The photos they are speaking of, are CP, just made in Photoshop.

Everyone is so quick to say, OMG they cant pass that law, that means every blah blah blah...this movie did this, and this movie did this...well read more on how CP is measured.

For instance, Fast TImes At Ridgemont High and Phoebe Cates topless scene, this measured agaist society does NOT offend the majority.

You take an altered pic of a 12 year old online, and that would/SHOULD offend ANY "average person in society" which is HOW obscenity is measured.

Ya'd think Adult Webmasters would read more about the legalities regarding these issues, instead of voicing incorrect opinions in regards to laws that apply especially to us... eh...*sigh*

If youre against this law in ant way, a big fuck you from SoCal.

Sorry Fletch but I think it is you who needs to read this law a bit more.

They were not speaking of just "CP, just made in Photoshop."

The law referrs to 18+ models pretending they are younger
computer graphic images of people who do not even exists.
a bad cut and paste job of a little girls head on a grown woman's body
literary works
you could not write fictional erotic stories that involved children.

Now however distasteful it might be for someone to write a fictional erotic story involving children...should we be throwing maybe the Next Nabokov and his own attempt at Lolita into the slammer?

You say that hollywood movies are going to be done in a "societally accepted manor."

Well I think that should scare you...that society is going to get to judge what is accepted and what is not..when even in Los Angeles you better not sale a movie involving fisting.

We're not talking about anything "real" here....only fantasies...and once we start trying to legislate what goes on in the brains of our citizenry...then fuck that I'm outta here.

I'm on my way to Belize

[UnseenWorld]

Originally posted by Gemini
They need to revise the law so that it only outlaws drawn cp.

Gem, I'm not with you on this one. The reason traditionally given for outlawing child porn is that it documents the abuse of a child. In other words, a child is abused in the process. Just as a drawing of a burglary isn't a burglary, and a painting of a murder isn't a murder, so the virtual depiction of child abuse doesn't abuse a child. I fear that anything designed to cover virtual child porn would be used sweepingly to cover stuff I'd still like to see protected. Remember, the 1st Amendment isn't designed to protect what you like. Or, rather, it is, but in doing so it inevitably protects stuff you don't like.

[Kimmykim]

This isn't a law about obscenity, this is a specific law regarding made up material. Whether it's tasteful, healthy or at all enticing isn't the question about it. Obscenity is a local issue, which may be fueled by federal funds, but there are no across the board federal laws regarding obscenity, while there are federal laws regarding CP.

Whether it's a matter of a porn website or a mainstream movie isn't the question either, since there's more than one so-called mainstream movie that could easily qualify as soft porn or more than that in the dvd format.

Unseen is right. The law isn't designed to cater to an individuals wishes pertaining to certain content. It's designed to protect the freedoms in the constitution.

[Fletch XXX]

Originally posted by eroswebmaster


Sorry Fletch but I think it is you who needs to read this law a bit more.

They were not speaking of just "CP, just made in Photoshop."

The law referrs to 18+ models pretending they are younger
computer graphic images of people who do not even exists.
a bad cut and paste job of a little girls head on a grown woman's body
literary works
you could not write fictional erotic stories that involved children.

Now however distasteful it might be for someone to write a fictional erotic story involving children...should we be throwing maybe the Next Nabokov and his own attempt at Lolita into the slammer?

You say that hollywood movies are going to be done in a "societally accepted manor."

Well I think that should scare you...that society is going to get to judge what is accepted and what is not..when even in Los Angeles you better not sale a movie involving fisting.

We're not talking about anything "real" here....only fantasies...and once we start trying to legislate what goes on in the brains of our citizenry...then fuck that I'm outta here.

I'm on my way to Belize

Hmm Eris, I just woke up so I am in no way shape after this week to debate hehehe... you are 100% right, I should read mroe regarding this... I was only saying before people place a judgement against CP laws they should read more...

I wasnt saying I knew it all bro, not after this week,... I dont know anything anymore.

All I know if CP whether fantasized or real is wrong. And thats my opinion.

You are disagreeing with me that Hollywood movies are made societally accepted?

I am only following the definition of Obscene material bro... I dont play in the gray line and am totally against CP whether its drawn, dreampt about, or coloring books. Its wrong.

All I was referring to about Societally accepted was...

http://www.adultweblaw.com/laws/obscene.htm

-------------------------------------------
The current definition of obscenity requires the application of a three-part test enunciated by the Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Under the so-called "Miller Test," a jury from the jurisdiction where an obscenity charge is brought will decide whether the content in question is obscene by asking:


"(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
------------------------------------------------------------

So I think as I said it still stands.

Society will NOT accept a pic of a 13 year old photoshopped into a naked 13 year old. But they will accept Phoebe Cates tits, in a movie...which once I thought about her tits, I lost my train of thought anyway so my statements could be considered null.

C/mon man, I dont feel like arguing.

[Kat - Fast]

In the UK it is illegal to have drawn images of CP on paper or on the PC. It's treated the same way as real CP.

[kmanrox]

Originally posted by Gemini
Even drawn cp feeds the peds. So why give it to them? Duhhh.

i am interpreting this decision on the logic of, 'how many times has brook shields' been nude, underage in a hollywood movie film, and that canot be considered CP.... i think they are saying that the whole situation as a whole must be taken into consideration before someone can be liable. ie 'Young Lolitas Erotic Beach Review' with 2yo girls in G-strings posing suggestively would be 'wrong', especially shot by a total amateur without any real photographic accomplishments or legit laurels..

[UnseenWorld]

Originally posted by kmanrox


i am interpreting this decision on the logic of, 'how many times has brook shields' been nude, underage in a hollywood movie film, and that canot be considered CP.... i think they are saying that the whole situation as a whole must be taken into consideration before someone can be liable. ie 'Young Lolitas Erotic Beach Review' with 2yo girls in G-strings posing suggestively would be 'wrong', especially shot by a total amateur without any real photographic accomplishments or legit laurels..

Once again, if we liked every use of free speech, there'd be no need for a First Amendment. It's impossible to draft a CP law that would not be interpreted by some tightass supercops to also cover, for example, the *Lolita* movie which came out several years ago, or very artistic renderings of nude children (e.g., pictures of cherubs painted on cathedral ceilings).

If you're going to ban EVERYTHING a pedo might find enjoyable, you can start with clothed pictures of children in the Sunday paper.

[eroswebmaster]

Originally posted by Fletch XXX

I am only following the definition of Obscene material bro... I dont play in the gray line
-------------------------------------------
The current definition of obscenity requires the application of a three-part test enunciated by the Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Under the so-called "Miller Test," a jury from the jurisdiction where an obscenity charge is brought will decide whether the content in question is obscene by asking:


"(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
------------------------------------------------------------

C/mon man, I dont feel like arguing.

LOL sorry man didn't wanna come off like I was arguing

I understand what you are saying...I just hope you realize that we are all playing in the gray areas here.

The internet has opened us up to so much opportunity but it opens us up to even more liability...as kimmykim says she can find a court somewhere in this country that will convict any website on obscenity...and I believe it can and will happen.

This is why we have to protect free speech...even the ugly parts

I think the courts know what "CP" is and isn't...and I think they've ruled wisely in this decision.

[Mr.Fiction]

This is a great ruling. Hurray for the Free Speech Coalition! Time to send them some more money!

[Shoplifter]

I guess this means that the "L" word will be back in vogue.

[jimmy3way]

Originally posted by UnseenWorld
Remember, the 1st Amendment isn't designed to protect what you like. Or, rather, it is, but in doing so it inevitably protects stuff you don't like.

I agree 100% dude, that's the Constitution I'd like to live under...but in practice it gets used as a doormat more than the cornerstone of our freedom.

[UnseenWorld]

Originally posted by Shoplifter
I guess this means that the "L" word will be back in vogue.

That is a totally different issue, but this ruling does seem to send a message that even this conservative court cherishes the First Amendment. I know The Justice Dept just got a bucket of ice water thrown on them. There is no champagne over at Justice today.

[UnseenWorld]

Originally posted by jimmy3way


I agree 100% dude, that's the Constitution I'd like to live under...but in practice it gets used as a doormat more than the cornerstone of our freedom.

And the shoes that are tromping on it lately tend to be The Justice Department's.

[eroswebmaster]

Originally posted by UnseenWorld


And the shoes that are tromping on it lately tend to be The Justice Department's.

Amen preach it brutha...

[jimmyf]

Originally posted by UnseenWorld



That is a totally different issue, but this ruling does seem to send a message that even this conservative court cherishes the First Amendment. I know The Justice Dept just got a bucket of ice water thrown on them. There is no champagne over at Justice today.

You better believe this is not the last that you will be hearing from Mr. John on this issue..

I bet he's thinking this is just a speed bumb. Am going to get those bastards now all of'em...

Not that he's a Pentecostal Minister would influence his judgment.

GW made a big mistake appointing this guy.

Just might be his down fall, not this one issue but the fact he will "try" screwing with the constitution now. It's going to 1 thing after another... WAIT and WATCH..

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by UnseenWorld



That is a totally different issue, but this ruling does seem to send a message that even this conservative court cherishes the First Amendment. I know The Justice Dept just got a bucket of ice water thrown on them. There is no champagne over at Justice today.

Agreed, but two of the most conservative judges went against the majority, Scalia and Rehnquist. I was surprised to see Thomas side with the majority. Scalia and Rehnquist are a fucking joke. These two fucks claim to be "strict constitutionalists" and then they try to make excuses for a law that they know is unconsititutional. They are activist judges in the worst way.

[Gemini]

Hmmmmm....

So lets look at it from a different tact...

How would you feel if an artist saw your kid or grand daughter/son, niece/nephew etc and put her/his face on this so called 'art' Where do you think they (artists) GET their ideas? Osmosis??

In this situation I go with the don't allow it. I admit that I falter on what should be allowed in movies... Vut if you back up and really think about those things... aren't they just using the lolita to gain sales? IS that right or is pushing the envelope in some cases just wrong?


As far as the watching violence on films etc, yes it IS being proven that kids believe that. Had our own prob with my stepson that way. And we know of several other kids that have exhibited violent tendancies after being allowed to watch that sort of programming. You all harp on the Muslim 'upbringing' makes them violent, its the same thing as movies etc.