*OT* - 'Virtual Child Porn' law struck down

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by C2FThom at vsat-148-64-7-85.c050.t7.mrt.starband.net on April 17, 2002 at 03:32:41:

I'm usually not the first to agree with the ACLU. In my opinion, they overstep their bounds on a lot of issues, and they conveniently forget their "pursuit for liberties" when it comes to groups not among their typical constituencies. I'll have to tip my hat to them, though, as well as the Supreme Court, for shooting down this totally bogus law.

Now, if you don't know what the law is, I'm sure you'd be in support of it. 'Child porn' is one of the biggest taboos of today's society, and rightfully so. However, this is one of those all-too-common cases of misleadingly labelling a law.

First of all, I thought 'child porn' is supposed to mean 'pornographic material of a minor'. Ashcroft must think it means '...of any person or CGI creation pretending to be a minor'. Well, that's a whole different ballgame! Child porn laws are in existence to protect minors from exploitation, right? Not to limit what some dork with his hands down his pants can watch. I mean, c'mon... Couldn't Ashcroft try a little harder at finding sleeper cells and anthrax mailers, and spend less time playing "wanker patrol"?

Of course, pornography isn't the greatest thing to defend. Frankly I don't give two hoots if the porn industry is inhibited upon by government control. But that's just the thing... The law isn't even focusing on porn! By its quite vague terminology, the law could easily be used to censor anything with sexually explicit content involving young-looking people. American Beauty? Gone. The love scene in a Romeo & Juliet flick? That better be a PG scene. Hell, Britney Spears will have to retire. (Ok, so maybe that's one positive effect the law could've had, but still...)

The law doesn't censor porn, it censors anything that the powers-that-be consider "shocking"... Be it for artistic purposes, to better develop a character, or what not. So it's essentially the same old quest to ban unique thought.

Glad it got shot down.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The View Askew WWWBoard ] [ FAQ ]