More Subjects
Your Name
Instructor Name
Course Number
Date
WCA-7
Pornography has, as a whole, been shown to reduce sexual violence. Similarly, BDSM and other fetish activities, by acknowledging the participants proclivities rather than shame them, allow them to be expressed in a safe and consensual manner. Most of the people hold the view that sexual attraction to children is little different from other preferences in that regard, with one major exception; there is no way to have safe, consensual, etc. sex with children who cannot consent (and unlike, say, necrophilia, you can’t just have an average adult convincingly pretend to be a kid like they can “play dead”). This means there is no way to play out pedophilia. However, fake porn, that doesn’t involve actual children, gets them somewhere. If letting them have fake porn helps them keep away from abusing real kids, so be it.
The United States supreme court held in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), and again in United States v. Williams (2008), that virtual child pornography was constitutionally protected speech under the first amendment to the United States Constitution - Essentially holding that the governmental interests in banning child pornography were in preventing the actual harm it causes to actual victims. While such materials may be considered obscene under the Miller doctrine (Derived from Miller v. California), the states are prohibited from banning mere possession of obscene materials. Therefore, the only law that bans virtual child pornography in the United states is a federal law that only does so to the extent that materials are produced or transmitted through interstate commerce. (and even then- it’s likely that the supreme court could find that such materials aren’t obscene under the Miller doctrine, as in the few cases that have been prosecuted under the Protect Act involving Virtual Child Pornography, all of those cases plead out for little jail time because the government wished to avoid a direct appeal from the District Court). The supreme court of the United States has also acknowledged in New York v. Ferber case that Child Pornography is not necessarily obscene- but acknowledged that obscenity was not the governmental interest served by outlawing actual child pornography.
Virtual Child Pornography could not necessarily reduce rates of real-life child sexual abuse. Virtual child pornography provides motivational material and fuel the sexual inspiration. Besides, children should never be portrayed sexually in any way, including the simulated child pornography. There have been attempts to make “virtual” child porn outright illegal, but they have failed due to the inability to craft a law that wouldn’t run afoul of the First Amendment due to vagueness. This virtual pornography, as well as other objectionable real-life content such as bestiality, necrophilia, gore, and so forth, may eventually be ruled obscene by a court if someone is prosecuted for distributing or producing them, but they’re all legal to possess.
Laws prohibiting child pornography should not be considered a violation of the 1st amendment of American constitution because child pornography by definition victimizes a child. All right, delineated under the 1st amendment of American constitution, have unwritten limits. The most basic of these is that the rights extend only until they interfere with someone else's rights. For instance, Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, provided those arms are only used peacefully (meaning, only ever used in self-defense or for legal sporting activities). The First Amendment is no different and people have the right to create and distribute whatever foul and depraved pornography they want unless in the course of that venture, they victimize someone else.
Pornography should not even be looked at as an obscenity because if the person in question is willing and fully able to make the decision to pose nude, then there is no reason why this should upset anyone other than himself or herself. One person can believe something is pornography and in direct violation with women’s civil rights, but another person can believe that it is an expression of one’s beliefs. Erotica is sexually explicit materials premised on equality but is still offensive to people who dislike pornography. There are some forms of pornography that people do find offensive and child pornography, either real or virtual, is offensive. Besides, there are exceptions to the First Amendment right to free speech. Libel, slander, and fraud are deemed 'unprotected speech'. Likewise, child porn is considered 'unprotected speech' as defined by the courts and congress - not to mention the vast majority of Americans.
Bans on buying/selling child pornography could be upheld as consistent with the first amendment under the theory that it is indirectly related to harm. Now, this is not consistent with law on any other form of speech. You can buy and sell a picture of someone being beheaded with no issue, and this is protected. Even in this, it is not fundamentally clear that there is not a protected speech right present with child pornography. The court has at least acknowledged that there is an interest at stake. However, the court has also held that drug prohibition is valid (though not on absolute terms - I find it interesting that of all the millions charged, this hasn’t been brought before the court, though not terribly surprising given the difficulty and reluctance of the court to proscribe itself). Drugs are a product, however, and are related to commerce, which is where the court holds the government derives its power to regulate (through the very controversial contemporary interpretation of the commerce clause of the constitution), so that isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison.
More Subjects
Join our mailing list
© All Rights Reserved 2024