"In 2002, with Justice Scalia in dissent, the court struck down a law that 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.
The 2003 law was a reasonable legislative remedy to whatever defects existed in the invalidated law, Justice Scalia wrote, although he alluded dryly to the law’s “unlikely title,” the Prosecutorial Remedies and other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act, which can be rendered by a politically attractive acronym, the Protect Act."
Though I have never considered myself in favor of most of the overly strict rulings that smack of governmental paternalism, I totally agree that nothing about child pornography should be covered by 'free speech'. There is no reason whatsoever for child pornography (which only salaciously feeds the pedophiles among us) to be circulated on the Internet or anywhere else.
Interpreting what is child pornography within the privacy of one's home as a parent takes a picture of a baby on a rug, a mother naked in the tub with her 15 month old son, or many of the other family pictures shot for memories, can be difficult when the morality police start coming out in droves. However, digital photography has made having pictures processed by strangers no longer a necessity so that it creates a better climate for family photographers and an easier climate for the industry that is making millions peddling child pornography if they can get away with circulating it on the Internet.
It would seem there is no other description for such photographic circulation than 'child abuse' and titillating pedophiles.
No comments:
Post a Comment