Supreme Court to Rule on 'Virtual' Child Porn 'These 'Virtual' Images in the Hands of a Pedophile Pose a Real Danger

To Real Children - They are Desensitized and Seduced Into Sex Acts.

The Threat is to Kids, Not the First Amendment,' FRC's LaRue says



    WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire Interactive News Release/ -- On Monday,
 Family Research Council, along with the National Law Center for Children and
 Families and the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and
 Families, filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the U.S. Supreme Court
 arguing that the federal ban on computer generated child porn images is
 constitutional.  The case, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, involves a
 review of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA), a bill that
 expanded federal child porn statutes to include a ban on "virtual" or
 computerized child porn.  A copy of the amicus brief, signed by FRC's Senior
 Director of Legal Studies Jan LaRue, is available at:
 http://www.frc.org/frc.cfm?get=LB01D1 .
     While federal child pornography laws prohibit the use of minors "in any
 sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of
 such conduct," pedophiles are using computer technology to produce a new form
 of child pornography, which is not included under these statutes.  Congress
 expanded the definition of child pornography in the CPPA of 1996 to include
 computer generated images of sexually explicit conduct if they are, or appear
 to be, of a minor engaging in that conduct.
     The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the statute unconstitutional,
 but the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have upheld it.  Of note: The
 Ninth Circuit received the See No Evil award for its decision at FRC's 4th
 annual Court Jester Awards ceremony last year.
     In FRC's amicus brief, it is argued that the statute is valid for three
 main reasons:
 
     1. the new law only applies where the images are so realistic that they
        appear to be real, whether created in whole or part by polaroid or
        pentium;
     2. that counterfeit child porn is a clear and present danger to children
        because such realistic images would have the same incitement effect on
        pedophiles to molest children and the same seductive effect on children
        to become victims and, therefore, the act of knowingly producing,
        distributing, or possessing such child sex images should not be
        recognized as a type of protected expression under the First Amendment;
        and
     3. that such computer imaging technology is a threat to the effectiveness
        of the existing child exploitation statutes.  Law enforcement could not
        find all the children in the images and defendants would argue that
        there is an automatic reasonable doubt defense to prosecutions of even
        "real" child porn under the old statute because it cannot be assumed
        that what appears to be a picture of a child is actually of a real
        child when computers can create the same authentic-looking images.
 
                     MAKE YOUR OPINION COUNT -  Click Here
                http://tbutton.prnewswire.com/prn/11690X94014779
 
 

SOURCE Family Research Council

More by this Source


Custom Packages

Browse our custom packages or build your own to meet your unique communications needs.

Start today.

 

PR Newswire Membership

Fill out a PR Newswire membership form or contact us at (888) 776-0942.

Learn about PR Newswire services

Request more information about PR Newswire products and services or call us at (888) 776-0942.