Virtual child pornography okay?????? (illegal, lawyers, free speech, how much)

[MargoKey]

I am really behind the times. While reading the news about a Tennessee man who pasted pictures of three minors onto pictures of nude adult women, I found out that in 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition) said that certain sections of the Child Pornography Prevention Act were overbroad and unconstitutional. One of these sections is 2256(8)(B), which includes "virtual child pornography." In the case of virtual child pornography, no children are actually harmed and, therefore, is protected speech and does not constitute a crime!

I am absolutely outraged right now. If the perpetrator is using pictures of real children, even if it is unknown to the child and family, how can that child not be harmed? Is the child only harmed if the image is disseminated?

Please, if there are any constitutional lawyers out there, explain this to me. As for anyone else, am I alone in my outrage?

I just don't understand what this world is coming to when it is all right to use children as sexual objects.

[Langlen]

Basically, what this means is that if the children themselves are not forced to perform the acts, then the children aren't harmed. This clause basically allows for people to photoshop children (or teens) into pictures, for instance, Miley Cyrus's face on Jenna Jameson's body.

[dcsldcd]

The world is becoming more perverse and the children are the targets. Liberalism is just great isn't it? Evidence the ACLU defending NAMBLA.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by MargoKey

I just don't understand what this world is coming to when it is all right to use children as sexual objects.

To try and help you understand...

Children != photos of children

Using a photoshopped image of a child's head on an adult body as a sexual object is not equivalent to using a child as a sexual object.

I hope I cleared up your confusion.

[Langlen]

Originally Posted by dcsldcd

The world is becoming more perverse and the children are the targets. Liberalism is just great isn't it? Evidence the ACLU defending NAMBLA.

Not all liberals support this kinda thing.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by dcsldcd

The world is becoming more perverse and the children are the targets. Liberalism is just great isn't it? Evidence the ACLU defending NAMBLA.

The ACLU never defended NAMBLA. Why do you spread lies?

[MargoKey]

Originally Posted by Langlen

Basically, what this means is that if the children themselves are not forced to perform the acts, then the children aren't harmed. This clause basically allows for people to photoshop children (or teens) into pictures, for instance, Miley Cyrus's face on Jenna Jameson's body.

Thanks for your response. I know what they are allowed to do, I just don't understand how it is all right. How is that freedom of speech? Is it okay to disseminate since it is virtual?

[Langlen]

Originally Posted by MargoKey

Thanks for your response. I know what they are allowed to do, I just don't understand how it is all right. How is that freedom of speech? Is it okay to disseminate since it is virtual?

The problem with that comes with enforcing. We see celebrity photoshops all the time, which while isn't on the same level as putting Dakota Fanning's face on a 20 something year old's body, is still against their consent.

It's technically all right because no one is actually being physically harmed. I'm sure if there's psychological pain, there could be some damages rendered, but it's still not illegal.

[dcsldcd]

Originally Posted by Langlen

Not all liberals support this kinda thing.

I am sure not all liberals support this but it is a direct result of liberalism that this type of thing is not banned all together.

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

The ACLU never defended NAMBLA. Why do you spread lies?

The ACLU HAS defended NAMBLA.

[Langlen]

Originally Posted by dcsldcd

I am sure not all liberals support this but it is a direct result of liberalism that this type of thing is not banned all together.

It's kinda hard to enforce that kind of ban if it does happen. While I myself do not like it, it's legal because no one is really harmed in the process.

The ACLU HAS defended NAMBLA.

The ACLU defended NAMBLA's constitutional right to freedom of speech. No matter how much you dislike the group, they still have the right to spout whatever ideals they want.