The pain and lifetime of suffering that child pornography brings to its victims was a big reason behind not extending the first amendment to such work; however, virtual pornography does not have any real life victims involved in its work. The images se... ... middle of paper ... ...ess the skills and have the technology necessary to distinguish between virtual and real child pornography. Though the U.S government tried to protect the innocent lives of the victims who have been forced to participate in child pornography by expanding the law to virtual child pornography they failed to adequately express their reasons behind why a law like CPPA should be in existence. Ultimately, the Supreme Court Justices voted to have virtual child pornography be a constitutionally protected form of free speech. Justice O’Connor explains that “the basis for the holding is unclear” and the basis for their decision is based on the oral arguments brought forward by the government.
But, is pornography really that harmful? There are many reasons why the government is having trouble putting restrictions on pornography. As Cynthia Stark states in Social Theory and Practice," just because some find certain materials offensive is not a sufficient reason for restricting those materials." There has to be proper grounds for making such laws to prevent pornography distribution because either way you look at it, it goes against the free speech laws of the first amendment. Nadine Strossen of the ACLU had a good point when she said "the First Amendment contains no exception for sexual speech.
For instance, images of child genitalia are legal in medical books, but if these same images are put on an adult website, the courts would most likely rule them illegal (AdultWebLaw, 2002). In any case, child pornography is an ongoing cont... ... middle of paper ... ...rosecute the adult entertainment companies because they are not breaking any laws. Until the Supreme Court rules that any form of child pornography is illegal, there will be no changes in the current standing of this issue. Child pornography, not involving children at the age of sixteen and under, is legal and exercises the adult entertainment industry’s right to free speech. Works Cited: Baase, Sara.
The biggest failure of responsibility lies with federal and state prosecutors who turn a blind eye to obscenity on the Internet. If obscenity laws were being vigorously enforced, the last thing hardcore pornographers would want to do is draw attention to their vile wares by engaging in reckless marketing methods. If vigorously enforced, there would also be much less pornography to accidentally stumble across. But prosecutors aren't the only ones at fault. Some ISPs provide parents with an option to filter out the pornography, but they refuse to block access to even illegal pornography unless a parent requests filtering.
To redeem themselves from the shame adults would say Internet pornography would be considered freedom of speech, but listed in that 1st amendment freedom of speech is evident but it has limitations. Internet pornography also affects adult addicts. It could get out of hand or to the point where it could make an impact on others where someone could get raped or infected with a disease. America is on the brink of banning Internet pornography, in fact down did ban pornography, but most individuals still entertain themselves with these sites. I intend to prove that children and adults impact and also the government 's will to ban online pornography.
With such a large number of people connected to the Internet, concerns for the safety of viewers have arisen, especially in the area of adult pornography. Many of the people who oppose adult pornography have advocated a law requiring Internet filters that restrict access to all pornographic material on the Internet. However, a law that requires Internet filters for all citizens are not the best solutions because there is insufficient justification to implement them and that many problems would occur from their implementation. The filtering of adult pornography on the Internet is not justifiable for a myriad of different reasons. First, children can be protected from accidentally viewing pornography through more convenient solutions than a law requiring Internet filters.
(Virtual child pornography is images that appear to be of children having sex, but which are in fact made-up, simulated by the miracles of modern computer graphics). Some who oppose such an amendment do so on the basis that the Constitution is not meant to cover specific legislative issues. That is true, but it misses the larger point, which comes down to basic rights, even for people we think have horrifying tastes. To put it bluntly, children (and adults too, of course) have the right not to be sexually exploited, BUT, adults have the right to possess any material which does not directly exploit children. Yes, including virtual pornography.
Over all crime and pornography do have a link between them and that makes censoring it a positive idea for America. Pornography has no positive effect on society. The American population agrees that pornography does not serve a legitimate purpose. Seventy-two percent of Americans want some sort of crack down on pornography. Also Ninety-two percent of Americans want a crack down on child pornography because it has no value and is disgusting and against the law ( 179).
Proponents of this proposal believe that violent video games do indeed, contribute to youth violence. While very distinctly the “con” stance believes violent video games do not contribute to youth violence. In my opinion, the “con” side makes the much stronger argument on procon.org. I believe the con side has a stronger argument because they provide convincing evidence to prove the opposing side wrong. For example, in “CON Contribute to Youth Violence” a strong piece of evidence is shown through the lines, “A short-term increase in arousal and aggression does not mean a child is going to leave his or her house and commit a violent act.” This is conveying that the opposing stance provides no proof towards the fact that they are not just providing alleged claims.