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!