Monday, May 19, 2008

PUT A LINE IN "W" COLUMN FOR THE KIDDIES


In a 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court, child pornography is not protected by free speech. The provision states that any attempt to produce, possess, exchange, distribute, promote or solicit child porography is a crime and not protected by the first amendment. Justice Scalia wrote the courts final decision stating "Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens," he said. "This court held unconstitutional Congress' previous attempt to meet this new threat, and Congress responded with a carefully crafted attempt to eliminate the First Amendment problems we [earlier] identified". According to CNN "the Bush administration urged the high court to accept the case, saying the overall impact of the law was being held hostage to a few hypothetical scenarios." The solicitor General for the Bush administration argued that "speech that falsely proposes an unlawful transaction is likewise unprotected." Six of the judges offered 3 different scenarios in which underage simulated sex could be misconstrued as child porn. The 3 movies named were "Lolita" "Traffic" and "Titanic". The two dissenters were Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Souter decision stated "that a double standard exists since those pandering images not involving minors engaging in simulated sex could now be prosecuted, but possession of those images would not be subject to prosecution." I think the justice has a point. Possession should be prosecuted whether they are "similated" or not. Now at least child porn can't be deemed artistic expression protecting the "pandering" of such claims. YOU GO SUPREME COURT! Who are the pervs fighting against restricting this kind of speech is my question. Call the vet cuz these puppies are sick!

7 comments:

namaste said...

hear hear! now if only they could find a way to save the children living with sexually abusive parents. those individuals should have their genitalia submerged in cement.

~m

Nikki said...

Maria before you submerge them make sure they are not attached to the perp...cut them off first, then submerge in cement! :)N

Sandi said...

There is actually a group (can't remember it's name) that condones child porn AND having sex with children. I've seen articles about them and it's quite sickening.

Bobbitizing is also good for the male pervs. Just don't tell him where you threw it, for god's sake!

Nikki said...

Sandi, the group is NAMBLA...it stands for North American Man Boy Love Association, and yes the ACLU has fought for their right to be disgusting dogs. LOVE the Bobbitizing term! may have to use it! :)N

Marbles said...

To give you an idea of who these pervs are, the specific case involved in this suit was a guy who distributed video of various adults molesting HIS 4 year old daughter! I want to know who the lawyers are that would take on such a case.

Paul is a Hermit said...

Souter - Ginsberg. Imagine the pool of like-minded individuals waiting for the call with a Democrat in office when an opening becomes available on The Court.

Gore, Clinton - either one - Edwards and many far worse than those, in my opinion.

Nikki said...

Marbles thanks for the info and the comment and for reading! DISGUSTING! I can only wonder about what is wrong with our world. :)N

Paul, The Supreme court is a worry. I can't imagine if a conservative court had a hard time passing this under the Bush admin. how it would be under a dem. I would hope that most people would condemn this dispicable act. including libs in office. :)N