DescentBB

It was ruled by the Supreme Court that possession and distribution child pornography is punishable crime.

I'm in a hurry right now, but I'll post source later.

** SOURCES**

ACLJ A Christian Law Site.

ScotusWiki for all you Wiki fans.

A PDF of the Circuit Court Transcript

Good!!

(Though I was under the impression that it was already a punishable crime... or was that not the case in some states?)

Punishable by death?

Duper wrote:It was ruled by the Supreme Court that possession and distribution child pornography is punishable crime.

I'm in a hurry right now, but I'll post source later.

In a hurry to do what...pull down your file sharing servers?!?

Hahaha!

I thought it was already a crime too...

heading to a Dr. appt and I had just heard about it on the radio.

California had passed a law (per ballot vote, not in house legislation) making it a crime to to own or distribute child pornography. the ACLU took it to court saying it was unconstitutional. The Circuit court Judge in CA ruled in their favor (big surprise there *sarcasm*). It was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Something similar happened here in Oregon. The state Legi formed a set of laws that did basically the same thing. They worked in conjunction with the ACLU to make sure there would be no trouble. iirc, it took nearly a year to get it all prepared and it passed but then the ACLU did an about face and shot it down leaving most everyone going \"wth??\"

Oh Testi, here in the city of Portland about 8 years ago, they tried the same thing and there was a massive campaign to shut the bill measure down claiming loudly that is was against the first amendment.

Duper wrote:It was ruled by the Supreme Court that possession and distribution child pornography is punishable crime.

You're a couple of years behind there Duper!

Nope, Tiger. Apparently it was just recently made a federal law; as Duper's examples show, it was previously a state-by-state thing.

I honestly didn't know there was a public movement that says it's okay. That's sick.

The best this does is set a solid presidence for the state cases. It doesn't make it Federal Law. (I think)

Maybe I need to brush up on my understanding of federal lawmaking... I thought a Supreme Court ruling did more than just set precedent.

Duper, you're right, this case doesn't make it federal law. It's been federal law for a long time. The Supreme Court has declared the provision in the federal child porn act as constitutional.

OMGoodness…don’t they teach civics in school anymore?

The Legislature makes the law in this country…

Spidey wrote:OMGoodness…don’t they teach civics in school anymore?

The Legislature makes the law in this country…

Thats why the California pink robes overturned a voted in law that gay marriage is illegal.

I understand you are being sarcastic, but others may think you are serious. So Its important to point out that the Supreme Courts (federal or state) job is to test the constitutionality of a law, not to make them.

I was being sarcastic and you are absolutely right. As some say, if certain liberals can't get a law they want from the legislature, they will get it from the courts.

Right. It's so hard to get something through the courts past a precedence set by the Supreme Courts it might was well be law.

What Cali did last Thursday is a bit frightening and disheartening. It basically makes our votes worthless.

this is specifically concerning the PROTECT act passed by congress in 2003.

Spidey wrote:OMGoodness…don’t they teach civics in school anymore?

The Legislature makes the law in this country…

Judicial, Legislative, Executive

Come on people

Duper wrote:Right. It's so hard to get something through the courts past a precedence set by the Supreme Courts it might was well be law.

What Cali did last Thursday is a bit frightening and disheartening. It basically makes our votes worthless.

iirc it was a constitutional matter, and matters of constitutional interpretation are not decided on by popular vote.

Much like interracial marriage laws were struck down as unconstitutional - against the public vote.

The thing is Roid, is there are State constitutions and laws and A federal constitution and laws. the federal constitution may not be clear in some areas. (in this matter I don't know) and if a power has been delegated to the State level, then it shouldn't be usurped by the Federal constitution. Especially in gray areas. It's just become accepted practice, not functional design. It's also become the favored tactic of the ACLU.

But if what is said by others on this board about Federal law areas prohibiting child pornography, why then did it go to the supreme court? (Not saying that you guys are wrong.) I'm curious as to why.

Wasn't ONE of the reasons that this issuse went all the way to the supreme court was to decide whether COMPUTER generated images of children, not even images of real children, just created bits, were to be considered as child pornography?

Tunnelcat, It seems the issue wasn't the nature of the porn itself - whether it was pixels or magazines or photos - but the delivery of the porn. More specifically, what intent is required to violate this law?

Duper, Often a law may be unconstitutional because it is overbroad - it encompasses conduct that is constitutional - or vague - the verbiage of the law is ambiguous. In this case, the law was purportedly written to be overbroad, so that people who ostensibly weren't doing anything wrong could be prosecuted under it. That was the argument at least.

Also, State laws are shot down as unconstitutional all the time by the Supreme Court. When it comes to the state police power, however, the US Supreme Court grants states ALOT of latitude.

yeah, I need to study up on that area a bit more. It's rather incumbent on me as a citizen to understand how our Judicial and Legislative system works exactly.

i recall something along the lines of:

Child abuse is illegal, and recorded depictions of it in progress are illegal (i assume). But drawn fictional depictions of it are not always illegal.

ie: Hentai Manga depicting children is considered AWWWITE in Canada at least. I forget what the laws are in USA, but i hear the expression \"legal in Canada\" mentioned a bit, so i guess i'm to assume this is painting a difference - and thus it's illegal in USA.

it's a strange state of affairs, i find it hilarious i even know about this stuff.

I have a question about this for you guys: Miley Cyrus recently had sorta a scandal happen- where she had some sorta racy pictures (I have not seen them, but I understand it's a bare back) taken/leaked from a photo shoot, and she ended up having to apologize & do this big PR thing over it. (She's 15, for those who don't know her age)

She said that the photographer (a famous one) egged her on, and she just ended up going along with it. She at least acted very regretful.

My question is this: Would you prosecute the photographer for this? It might be a little bit of a stretch, but it'd sure be a sobering thing to let the photographer know that she's responsible, when it comes to minors.

snoopy wrote:I have a question about this for you guys: Miley Cyrus recently had sorta a scandal happen- where she had some sorta racy pictures (I have not seen them, but I understand it's a bare back) taken/leaked from a photo shoot, and she ended up having to apologize & do this big PR thing over it. (She's 15, for those who don't know her age)

She said that the photographer (a famous one) egged her on, and she just ended up going along with it. She at least acted very regretful.

My question is this: Would you prosecute the photographer for this? It might be a little bit of a stretch, but it'd sure be a sobering thing to let the photographer know that she's responsible, when it comes to minors.

The photographer stated the parents were there and had no objection. From what I read, the parents were not there for those pics. I've seen the pics and for a 15 year old in the spotlight, they are not in good taste (IMHO). As she gets older, more and more photographers will try to get her pics in more and more "contraversal" takes. It is the photographers duty not to force/con underage people into these types of pictures. Until they are 18 or older and able to make the proper decisions by themself, I think it's upon them to take some responsibility.

No nudity = no prosecution. I saw that pic, it was mundane. The fact that there's an 'uproar' about it is pathetic. It's completely non-news. 15yo's don't wear that much clothing at the mall...

She could have said no. It's real easy, especially when you're already rich/famous.

If she was an adult it would depend on whether she signed a release or not, as far as being underage, then I guess if she was nude, he is a criminal.

Yep. There was a German book that came out a long time ago titled 'Show Me' that was supposed to teach children about sex and it contained photos of nude children but no sex acts, only anatomy. It was apparently distributed in the U.S. decades ago and I remember seeing it in some bookstore back in the mid 1970's. It was promptly banned after public outcry and ownership of the book is now considered illegal and in violation of U.S. child pornography laws. I think it's still legal in Europe maybe?