TicklingDuo
3rd Level Yellow Feather
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2001
- Messages
- 3,733
- Points
- 0
What a bunch of gutless wonders! I hope that they at least plan to reword things and get something through.
Ann
High Court Strikes Down Child Pornography Law
Updated 11:18 AM ET April 16, 2002
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court 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.
The high court's 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, represented a stinging setback for the U.S. Justice Department in an important test of the Constitution's First Amendment free-speech protections in the computer age.
Kennedy wrote for the court majority that the law was too broad and violated the First Amendment by prohibiting speech despite serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
He said themes of teen-age sexual activity and the sexual abuse of children have inspired countless literary works. He said William Shakespeare in ``Romeo and Juliet'' created the most famous pair of teen-age lovers, one of whom was just 13.
While Shakespeare may not have included sexually explicit scenes for the Elizabethan audience, modern movie directors may want to show that the couple consummated their relationship, he said.
Kennedy said a number of acclaimed movies, filmed without any child actors, explore themes that fall within the wide sweep of the law's prohibitions.
CITES MOVIES 'TRAFFIC,' 'AMERICAN BEAUTY'
He cited the award-wining movies, ``Traffic,'' which has the high school daughter of the nation's drug czar trading sex for drugs, and ``American Beauty,'' with scenes of sexual relations between a teen-age girl and her boyfriend and a teen-age girl and a middle-aged man.
The so-called ``virtual'' child pornography law, adopted by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, made it a crime to distribute or possess the pictures, even if the images did not involve real children.
The law targeted advanced computer-imaging technology that can be used to alter a child's innocent picture into a depiction of a child engaged in sex. Producing or selling such pornography carries up to 15 years in prison while possession can lead to as much as five years in prison.
The Child Pornography Prevention Act expanded a long-standing ban on child pornography to prohibit any image that ``appears to be'' or ``conveys the impression'' of someone younger than 18 engaged in sexually explicit acts.
The law was challenged by the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association of businesses that sell adult-oriented materials, for violating constitutional free-speech rights.
Others who sued were a publisher of a book on nudism, an artist who paints nudes and a photographer who specializes in erotic photography.
The Justice Department said the law sought to combat child pornography in the digital age.
But Kennedy rejected that argument, finding that virtual child pornography was not directly related to the sexual abuse of children.
He also rejected the argument that the law was necessary because pedophiles may use virtual child pornography to seduce children.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the entire ruling. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented from part of the ruling, but agreed with part of the judgement.
Rehnquist said the court should not construe a law as banning film portrayals of Shakespearean tragedies without some indication from the text of the law or the legislative history that such a result was intended by Congress.
He said the movies ``Traffic'' and ``American Beauty'' were made after the law was adopted. The law did not inhibit the movie producers from including images of youthful-looking adult actors engaging in sexually suggestive conduct, he said, in rejecting concerns by the court majority.
Ann
High Court Strikes Down Child Pornography Law
Updated 11:18 AM ET April 16, 2002
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court 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.
The high court's 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, represented a stinging setback for the U.S. Justice Department in an important test of the Constitution's First Amendment free-speech protections in the computer age.
Kennedy wrote for the court majority that the law was too broad and violated the First Amendment by prohibiting speech despite serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
He said themes of teen-age sexual activity and the sexual abuse of children have inspired countless literary works. He said William Shakespeare in ``Romeo and Juliet'' created the most famous pair of teen-age lovers, one of whom was just 13.
While Shakespeare may not have included sexually explicit scenes for the Elizabethan audience, modern movie directors may want to show that the couple consummated their relationship, he said.
Kennedy said a number of acclaimed movies, filmed without any child actors, explore themes that fall within the wide sweep of the law's prohibitions.
CITES MOVIES 'TRAFFIC,' 'AMERICAN BEAUTY'
He cited the award-wining movies, ``Traffic,'' which has the high school daughter of the nation's drug czar trading sex for drugs, and ``American Beauty,'' with scenes of sexual relations between a teen-age girl and her boyfriend and a teen-age girl and a middle-aged man.
The so-called ``virtual'' child pornography law, adopted by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, made it a crime to distribute or possess the pictures, even if the images did not involve real children.
The law targeted advanced computer-imaging technology that can be used to alter a child's innocent picture into a depiction of a child engaged in sex. Producing or selling such pornography carries up to 15 years in prison while possession can lead to as much as five years in prison.
The Child Pornography Prevention Act expanded a long-standing ban on child pornography to prohibit any image that ``appears to be'' or ``conveys the impression'' of someone younger than 18 engaged in sexually explicit acts.
The law was challenged by the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association of businesses that sell adult-oriented materials, for violating constitutional free-speech rights.
Others who sued were a publisher of a book on nudism, an artist who paints nudes and a photographer who specializes in erotic photography.
The Justice Department said the law sought to combat child pornography in the digital age.
But Kennedy rejected that argument, finding that virtual child pornography was not directly related to the sexual abuse of children.
He also rejected the argument that the law was necessary because pedophiles may use virtual child pornography to seduce children.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the entire ruling. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented from part of the ruling, but agreed with part of the judgement.
Rehnquist said the court should not construe a law as banning film portrayals of Shakespearean tragedies without some indication from the text of the law or the legislative history that such a result was intended by Congress.
He said the movies ``Traffic'' and ``American Beauty'' were made after the law was adopted. The law did not inhibit the movie producers from including images of youthful-looking adult actors engaging in sexually suggestive conduct, he said, in rejecting concerns by the court majority.
Q
