YOUR SUPREME COURT AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

By JOSEPH HARRIS

I have never understood the decision of the Supreme Court to protect virtual child porn as free speech. In a decision that had to do with invalidating portions of the Child Pornography Act which was passed by Congress in 1996, the court basically said that REAL photographs of REAL children involved in REAL sexual acts are illegal and not protected as free speech, BUT computer generated images that APPEAR to be of children, which APPEAR to be involved in sex acts are okay. In other words, hand drawn or computer generated pictures that appear to be of minors in acts of simulated sex, are protected as free speech. 

Well, that sounds as clear as the tax code. Only two judges dissented. Hats off to Justices Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist. Apparently, only two judges on the highest court in this country are thinking with any sanity and common sense. Imagine, if it has not hit you yet; the highest court in this land believes that virtual child pornography has merit and needs protecting.

One charge by opponents was that predators can use this now legal porn to entice and lure children into the real thing, which is exactly what they do with all kinds of porn. Now the predators can show legal pictures of children supposedly engaged in sexual acts, to real children, to entice them and further break down barriers of inhibition.

In response to this charge, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, said that candy and video games can also be used for immoral purposes, but are not prohibited just because they have potential for misuse. IS HE SERIOUS?

This is the worst case of comparing apples with oranges I have ever seen. Child porn compared with candy? Is anyone out there with me, or am I the only one wondering what this guy is doing on the bench, with that kind of reasoning.

Let’s follow through with their reasoning of the pictures not being real and the sexual acts only simulated. How would they respond to:

Hate Crimes - pictures of homos being beaten or lynched, simulated of course and computer imaged. No actual pictures of real people.

Minority Bashing - handrawn, naturally, featuring minorities being trashed and abused by hand drawn skin-heads and "good ole boys" (with virtual tobacco spit stains)

Animal Abuse-Lab rats being mercilessly tortured and maimed, just pretend, of course, with only simulated torture of computer generated images, complete with fake cries for help.

I wonder if today’s judges and courts would fight for free speech protection of the above mentioned proposals. Why not? After all, it’s only simulation.

Our high court should be concerned with protecting children, but instead has sided with those who would hurt, misuse and abuse our children. Remember the words of Jesus. It would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and drowned than to hurt innocent children. God help us.

 

Joseph Harris is the Chairman of Biblical Studies at Southeastern Baptist College in Laurel, MS.(This article may be reprinted in whole, as long as the name Joseph Harris and

www.miniedition.net also appear)