crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (01/25/85)
>In article <4657@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >> ... >>If the First Amendment covers the right to buy it it covers the >>right for it to be produced. >> >>-- >> >>Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd > >I said I wouldn't post to this subject again, but I can't stand it. >This one straw man to demolish and THEN I won't post any more. > >This is nonsense. You can't claim that murdering a person is legal >simply BECAUSE you take pictures of the murder, intending to publish >them. If your argument held, so would this one. > >N.B.(1) I've written a more detailed refutation, ... and here it is: The argument here was that if ``kiddie-porn'' were legal -- protected by the first amendment -- then so long as the actors were not abused, and the parents of the actors consented, then making kiddie porn would not be restricted. However, the whole argument hinges on the idea that the actors could participate in the making of a film without being abused. Can't be done. The legal description of child abuse includes ANY kind of sexual act with a child, on the assumption that they 1) can't consent in an informed manner and 2) should not be subjected to any sexual use. Note that consent of the parents does not *not* *NOT* make this legal -- any more than the consent of the parents to the sacrifice of a baby girl in an Satanic ritual would be legal, or would make that sacrifice any less a murder in the eyes of the law. Therefore, it follows irrefutably that *making a film/photo/whatever in which a child is subjected to sexual acts is child abuse*! No matter WHO consents! ... and photos of this should make wonderful evidence in court on a child abuse charge. In addition, I would suspect that publishing such pictures -- which I believe in itself protected by the First Amendment -- would probably not protect the publisher from being required to reveal from whom the pictures were purchased (obstruction of justive laws would be handy here.) The photographer could in turn probably be found guilty of being an accesory before the fact to the act of child abuse (and I don't believe that his/her intention to take pictures would be sufficient defense.) So without invoking a suggested restriction on kiddie-porn, we can already see that kiddie porn is illegal in the sense that HAVING SEX WITH CHILDREN IS ILLEGAL, whether you take pictures or not -- and you can therefore prosecute these people without needing to mess with the First Amendment protections in the slightest. Whether or not it is legal to "produce" the kiddy porn is not very important to being able to prosecute the child-molestors. Also, what about written descriptions of having sex with children? Should those be banned? As far as I can see, there is no direct evidence that the person writing such a thing has had sex with shildren, nor is there a "clear and present danger" that reading that sort of thing will cause a person to become a child molestor. I do suspect that a person who finds himself/herself excited by such things may already be a potential child-abuser, and might want to consider whether or not some therapy would be appropriate -- but if they commit no acts of child abuse, WHAT BUSINESS IS IT OF THE GOVERNMENT OR OF THE COURTS? I think none. -- Opinions stated here are my own and are unrelated. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)