Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Justices Hear Arguments on Internet Pornography Law
    #7581858 - 10/31/07 06:18 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

WASHINGTON, Oct. 30 — Ever since it unanimously overturned the Communications Decency Act a decade ago, the Supreme Court has pushed back against Congressional efforts to regulate Internet content.

Five years ago, for example, the court struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act, which made it a crime to create, distribute or possess “virtual” child pornography that uses computer-generated images or young-looking adults rather than real children.

Congress has refused to take no for an answer, and based on the way an argument unfolded on Tuesday at the Supreme Court, it appears that Congress may have finally fought the court to a draw.

The justices appeared likely to uphold the constitutionality of the latest legislative effort, a 2003 law called the Protect Act.

At the least, they seemed likely to support a version of it they would construe narrowly to allay concerns the law is so broadly written as to make it a crime to share or even describe depictions of children in explicit sexual situations, even if the depictions are inaccurate, the supposed children do not really exist and the intention is innocent.

Those concerns led the federal appeals court in Atlanta to declare the Protect Act unconstitutional last year.

The decision overturned the conviction of a Florida man who was caught in a federal sting offering to trade nude pictures of his young daughter and other forms of child pornography in an Internet chat room. Although he did not have pictures of his daughter, he did have 22 pornographic images of other children on his computer hard drive.

Possessing such images has long been illegal, and the possession offense to which the man, Michael Williams, pleaded guilty was not part of the case before the Supreme Court.

At issue, rather, was the separate statute under which he was found guilty of “pandering” child pornography, defined as advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing or soliciting real or “purported” material “in a manner that reflects the belief or that is intended to cause another to believe” that it is child pornography.

In finding that provision so overly broad as to violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit observed that it could be a crime under the statute to offer for sale “a copy of Disney’s ‘Snow White’ on false claims that it contains depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.”

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, arguing the government’s appeal, told the justices that just as “speech proposing an unlawful transaction” had no constitutional protection, neither did speech that “falsely proposes an unlawful transaction.”

Whether the child pornography was real or just purported, the act of offering it could properly be made a crime, Mr. Clement said. The proposed transaction need not be commercial, he added, to the evident consternation of several justices.

Mr. Clement said that the 11th Circuit’s concern was misplaced and that there was no reason to fear that distributors of “mainstream” movies might violate the statute for using young-looking actors in place of actual children in sexually explicit scenes. Audiences were well aware of such substitutions, and studios did not intend to deceive them, he said.

Not all the justices were persuaded. “What if you are 17 years old and you haven’t gone to law school and you haven’t read these cases?” Justice David H. Souter asked.

If Mr. Clement, one of the most accomplished of current Supreme Court advocates, had some unusually rocky moments, that was nothing compared with the difficulties that faced his opponent, Richard J. Diaz of Coral Gables, Fla.

Mr. Diaz, in his first Supreme Court appearance, gave confusing and contradictory answers to questions that he did not seem to have anticipated.

One problem was that his client, Mr. Williams, had indisputably engaged in behavior that the justices found unsavory.

That put this case, United States v. Williams, No. 06-694, on a different footing from the other recent cases, in which statutes were challenged as violating the First Amendment on their face, in the abstract, rather than as outgrowths of criminal prosecutions.

“Your client didn’t produce ‘Lolita,’” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.

Pressed by several justices for examples of how the statute might actually trap unwary people, Mr. Diaz could not supply any.

Mr. Clement, for his part, was ready to meet the justices more than halfway. If the court thought the statute reached too far, he said, “then I would invite you to have a more restrictive view” of its scope.

“We certainly want you to interpret that statute in a way that renders it not overbroad,” he said, offering an invitation that a majority appeared likely to accept.

nytimes.com


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEntheogenicPeace
Scholar
Male


Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
Re: Justices Hear Arguments on Internet Pornography Law [Re: Diploid]
    #7585577 - 11/01/07 08:52 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

---

Edited by EntheogenicPeace (01/30/21 06:35 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Justices Hear Arguments on Internet Pornography Law [Re: Diploid]
    #7585645 - 11/01/07 09:13 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

so I can be arrested for pretending that I have child porn or for having fake child porn?


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Justices Hear Arguments on Internet Pornography Law [Re: afoaf]
    #7585729 - 11/01/07 09:35 PM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Yep. In some jurisdictions anime child porn and even line art drawings and fictional written stories will land you in prison. Watch out for the Thought Police.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: Justices Hear Arguments on Internet Pornography Law [Re: Diploid]
    #7586789 - 11/02/07 07:47 AM (16 years, 4 months ago)

Justification for preventing child pornography is eventually going to kill the internet as we know it imo.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Law Too Unconstitutional For Even Justice Department to Defend Ravus 661 3 01/26/05 06:54 PM
by zappaisgod
* Political Justice, the "right" to survive?
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 2,839 27 12/22/03 04:51 PM
by Crobih
* Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america mabus 1,392 13 03/15/04 07:25 PM
by Phred
* Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Powers Evolving 808 2 02/08/03 09:05 AM
by Angry Mycologist
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,603 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred
* morality and the law
( 1 2 all )
hongomon 2,257 33 11/20/02 02:08 PM
by BleaK
* miscarriage-of-justice sunday (LATIMES)... Annapurna1 691 3 04/25/05 12:32 AM
by Smallworlds
* Your internet experience in america is changing. mabus 904 15 03/14/04 08:23 PM
by

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
669 topic views. 0 members, 11 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.021 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.