The Legality of Child Pornography Child pornography is an ongoing issue as technology progresses in today’s world. Now there are ways to produce child pornography without actually using a real child. While there are acts and laws to protect the children, there are still many unsatisfied people on each side of the issue. There are people who believe the adult entertainment companies, who produce the child pornography; they believe that their First Amendment rights are being violated with current acts and laws against it. There are also people who think that the current laws are not strict enough and that they need to outlaw all types of child pornography.
Bibliography: Works Cited Elmer-Dewitt, Philip (1995) “On A Screen Near You: Cyberporn.” Time, July 1995 Ford, Marrin, Esposito, Witmeyer & Gleser, Can Congress Censor The Internet? L.L.P., 1996 Simon, Glenn E. (1998), “Cyberporn and censorship: constitutional barriers to preventing access to Internet pornography by minors.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v88 n3 p1015-1048. Wekesser, Carol. (1997). Pornography: opposing viewpoints.
In today’s fast developing and modern society the thought of seeing two grown adults having sex is still considered taboo. Most Americans cringe at the thought of seeing pornography and dismiss the act as nothing more than a senseless lewd act. Yet, the Supreme Court held that pornography was to be considered a form of personal expression and should be protected under the first amendment (New York v. Ferber, 1973). The Supreme Court did not choose to extend the same constitutional protection to child pornography, arguing against its explicit and hurtful content. Supreme Court Justices argued that child pornography has no scientific, literary, artistic, or political value; they thought the material that was going to arise from child pornography was going to cause more harm than good if they were to allow it to be protected.
They say that the Internet has to be censored because it has material, especially pornography, which can and will be offensive to others. But not everybody agrees with that. The censorship of the Internet is still a very controversial issue, and people all over the world debate whether or not this is a case against free speech. While Morgan states that by censoring the Internet we’ll be protecting ourselves and our children, Mr. Jeffrey Pollock, a Republican from Oregon who used to think the same, recently changed his mind when he found out that his own site had been blocked by an Internet filter. After the incident, Mr. Pollock expressed that “To mandate the federal government to legislate morality, I find abhorrent”(Schwartz).
In today’s society, people are debating if “virtual” child pornography should be banned. Most people believe that it should, while others believe that it should not be banned at all. Since the Supreme Court decided that “virtual” child pornography is legal, most people have felt that they have made a horrible mistake. By check many articles on this topic, I have decided to use two fairly good articles, written by two well-known editors, Wendy Kaminer, editor at The Atlantic Monthly, and Paul Rodriguez, editor of Insight on the News. Even though I agree that “virtual” child pornography should be banned, Kaminer presented a stronger argument that “virtual” child pornography should not be banned.
Her idea is no matter what your opinion about pornography; it entices and interests the viewer. It is intriguing to think about it from a cultural standpoint in her view and even from a personal view because society in general, tends to think about the data itself, but not about the people who are against pornography being drawn in as such as someone who thinks as of pornography as a positive. This point will be discussed in the Meese Commission. In her opinion, Kipnis states that there are no boundaries between private and public pornography because they are constantly shifting and therefore it is too difficult to tell where they are. Because of the idea of public versus private domain is a common theme throughout pornography and will be examined further, especially ... ... middle of paper ... ...cs of Fantasy in America, New York, 1996.
The current problems with the internet serve for clarification as to why the United States should create a nonpartisan assembly to censor the internet in order to protect its citizens from the mental, emotional, and physical harms the internet creates. The first benefit that would result from censoring the internet would be the protection of the mind. When children are doing homework online, they frequently get distracted by the presence of other websites. This often interferes with their progress. In cases of teenagers, the websites they are commonly sidetracked by are pornography websites.
I also will argue that their current ontological assumptions might have left open the door to future suppression of free speech as the technology progresses. How do ontological assumptions open the door to censorship? Zoning in the physical world has long been established as a way to segregate "adult" entertainment from minors, as with the creation of adult book store and entertainment zones. So far, at least, most of the justices seem to agree that such zoning is not possible in cyberspace, and, therefore, that adult zones for certain forms of expression are not possible either. But this conclusion is far from settled.
Virtual child pornography also includes any images presenting people who appear to be minors or adult bodies superimposed with the faces of children, often making it difficult to tell if the material is of a real child or not. These new forms of child porn were becoming prevalent on the Internet at the time because it was easily accessible and not yet illegal. The act therefore prohibited the possession, transm... ... middle of paper ... ...line. 13 May 2002. http://www.missingkids.com/html/ncmec_default_ec_childporn_laws.html Palmer, Elizabeth A. "Foes of 'Virtual' Child Pornography Seeking a Very Real Remedy After Court Strikes Down Ban."
Pornography is considered by many to be an unwelcome and distasteful part of our society. However, I argue that it is necessary to voice the unpopular viewpoints, under the Constitution. This paper is a defense of pornography as a constitutional right of free expression, under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In illustrating this argument, I will first define pornography as a concept, and then address central arguments in favor of pornography remaining legal and relatively unregulated – such as the development of the pornography debate throughout modern US law, and how activist groups address the censorship of adult entertainment. In addition to bolstering my argument in favor of pornography, I will also demonstrate the strength the argument has in modern discourse by dispelling common myths in favor of the censorship of pornography, such as the increase in violence towards, the subjugation of, and objectification of women, and I will subsequently offer a substantial rebuttal.