| | |
|
DavidMehlFirstPaper 13 - 22 Apr 2010 - Main.DavidMehl
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Ready for comments. | | | In 1996, Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act that criminalized the creation of VCP. Under the CPPA, images that appeared to depict children but do not, including images of youthful-looking adults or images that are computer-generated, were illegal. The CPPA also included a “pandering” provision that stated that any image that has been promoted in a manner that “conveys the impression” that a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct is depicted, is illegal. | |
<
< | The Supreme Court found the CPPA unconstitutional on numerous grounds in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Congress then came up with The PROTECT Act (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today). Built on the same platform as the CPPA, it contains some important distinctions that avoid the Constitutional pitfalls of the CPPA. The Supreme Court found the PROTECT Act and its pandering provision to be Constitutional because First Amendment protection only extends to lawful speech; offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection. Justice Scalia states stated that VCP which is marketed as VCP will not be proscribed by the PROTECT Act. The Act proscribes only pandering where the intention is to cause another to believe that the material is contraband. As a result, one who creates VCP – even if it is indistinguishable from real child pornography - and markets it as VCP, is afforded First Amendment rights. | >
> | The Supreme Court found the CPPA unconstitutional on numerous grounds in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Congress then came up with The PROTECT Act (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today). Built on the same platform as the CPPA, it contains some important distinctions that avoid the Constitutional pitfalls of the CPPA. The Supreme Court found the PROTECT Act and its pandering provision to be Constitutional because First Amendment protection only extends to lawful speech; offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection. Justice Scalia stated that VCP which is marketed as VCP will not be proscribed by the PROTECT Act. The Act proscribes only pandering where the intention is to cause another to believe that the material is contraband. As a result, one who creates VCP – even if it is indistinguishable from real child pornography - and markets it as VCP, is afforded First Amendment rights. | | |
Should It Be Legal to Market VCP As VCP? | |
<
< | Society is repulsed by child pornography. Children are usually the most innocent and defenseless of people; child pornography harms and debases these innocents. The most damage to children occurs in the production of real child pornography. VCP does not damage children in its production because children were quite possibly never involved in its production. Perhaps VCP is beneficial to children by allowing potential producers of real child pornography to instead turn to its legal cousin so as to avoid prosecution? Thus, VCP may decrease cases of sexual abuse by allowing pedophiles to sublimate their desires into a victimless alternative that is not intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. Can the Government restrict this harmless speech? As long as the VCP is not obscene, production is not proscribed under Ferber, nor is possession proscribed under Osborne. However, perhaps VCP ought to be obscene and thus illegal under the Miller test? | >
> | Society is repulsed by child pornography. Children are usually the most innocent and defenseless of people; child pornography harms and debases these innocents. The most damage to children occurs in the production of real child pornography. VCP does not damage children in its production because children were quite possibly never involved in its production. Perhaps VCP is beneficial to children by allowing potential producers of real child pornography to instead turn to its legal cousin so as to avoid prosecution? Thus, VCP may decrease cases of sexual abuse by allowing pedophiles to sublimate their desires into a victimless alternative that is not intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. Can the Government restrict this harmless speech? As long as the VCP is not obscene, production is not proscribed under Ferber, nor is possession proscribed under Osborne. However, perhaps VCP ought to be obscene and thus not afforded First Amendment rights under the Miller test? | | | 1. Does the work, applying community standards, appeal to the purient interest? | | | 2. Does the work depict in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law? | |
<
< | Arguably, there is no criminal more reviled by society than the child molester/pedophile. Any material that aids or incites the pedophile would undoubtedly be repugnant and offensive. According to the Mayo Clinic, studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for internet child pornography had molested a child. As a result, any depiction of child pornography, even if it involved no children in its production such as VCP, would arguably be found to be offensive. | >
> | Arguably, there is no criminal more reviled by society than the child molester/pedophile. Any material that aids or incites the pedophile would undoubtedly be repugnant and offensive. According to the Mayo Clinic, studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for internet child pornography had molested a child. As a result, any depiction of child pornography, even if it involved no children in its production such as VCP, would arguably be found to be offensive. | | | Often the pedophile uses child pornography as a way of tricking his victim into believing that sexual relations between adults and children are normal. VCP that is indistinguishable from real child pornography is probably just as dangerous as the real thing. The pedophile would be able to utilize the virtual depiction the same way he would utilize the real one. Even if the VCP were distinguishable from real child pornography, what is to say that the child victim is able to distinguish between the virtual depiction and the real one? VCP would be offensive simply because it is a tool utilized by the pedophile. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |