Supreme Court defends artistic freedom? And/Or kiddie porn? (1 Viewer)

[Hugh Jackes]

The US Supreme Court has voided a 1996 law that forbade the portrayal of children having sexual relations, even though the actors were above the age of consent.
http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20020416/D7IU63480.html
At it's harshest interpretation, the law would made criminals out of the makers of Traffic (the drug czar's daughter), Romeo and Juliet (Romeo and Juliet), Titanic (Rose), and Lolita (Lolita), for their portayal of minors involved in sexual situations.
Alternatively, the pornograph industry can now legally cast younger looking adults specifcally to appeal to pedophiles.
Tawk amongst yourselves.

 

[Jay E]

Finally, I can be cast in a porno film!!!

 

[Brian Perry]

This topic is obviously sensitive but I think worth discussing.

I think Congress's intent --which was admirable -- was to a) make enforcement of child porn laws practical (after all, it would be very burdensome for law enforcement to have to research every image to verify whether it was a real child), and b) to lessen the feeding of prurient desires of child molesters, even though no real children were being harmed.

However, when you look at the ban closely, I think it went too far. In theory it could have been extended to action movies in which murder or other heinous acts sometimes are glorified or made to look exciting. Even though no one is actually killed in a movie, some might say that the ideas or images provoked someone to commit the act in real life.

It's a tough balancing act.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

This isn't defending child porn, just the portrayal of underage sex. Personally, anymore freedom is good freedom in my book.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Freedom is a lot easier and more enjoyable when everyone maintains some kind of social conscience. It's sad that the reason so many thoughtful and upright citizens even have to debate/create such laws are because of a small group of people that are willing to take advantage of whatever freedoms they are given and whatever person it suits their needs to exploit.
So you end up with artists mixed in with criminals. It just shows how the secondary effects of crimes against the social structure are perhaps even more profound than the more obvious immediate effects on the victims themselves.
And it's never going to be different as far as I can tell. The spaceships aren't the only thing Sci-Fi in Star Trek. :frowning:
I'm glad artistic freedom has been given this small reinforcement. It's too bad that it also means loosening the barriers against criminals at the same time, barriers that shouldn't even NEED to exist.