On Tuesday, the Supreme Court gave child pornographers the green light — as long as their subjects aren’t “real.” The court struck down a federal law that banned computer-generated representations of children engaging in sexual activity.
While the intent behind the court’s actions is honorable, this is a misguided and idiotic attempt to support free speech. The Supreme Court did away with four provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act, implemented in 1996 to ban child pornography on the Internet. The question on many minds is why the Supreme Court would strike down a law that actually protects children.
The court majority decided that “virtual” child pornography “creates no victims by its production,” since it depicts computer-generated or manipulated photographic images, and not actual children.
From a narrow perspective, this seems to be true. Of course, no “real” victims are created by the actual production of this type of pornography. But the second a pedophile sees the images, children everywhere are victimized. By allowing any kind of child pornography, we allow an environment that fosters child predators.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy explained the majority opinion with this: “Our society, like other cultures, has empathy and enduring fascination with the lives and destinies of the young.”
“Both themes — teenage sexual activity and the sexual abuse of children — have inspired countless literary works,” Kennedy said, including “Romeo and Juliet.”
I find this defense disgusting. Since when did the sexual abuse of children inspire anything but future therapy bills? And yes, “Romeo and Juliet” was inspired by a pair of teenage lovers, but not by adults watching them have sex and becoming aroused by it. I must have missed the “porno” version of Shakespeare’s masterpiece.
The court also mentioned movies like “American Beauty” and “Traffic,” saying it feared the provisions would prevent film makers from creating films depicting minors involved in sexual activity. However, these provisions have been in place since 1996, and both movies were made after that year. The law hasn’t had much of an effect on the nonpornographic film industry.
Kennedy’s representation of the court’s reasoning seems eerily reminiscent of what U.S. News & World Report columnist John Leo calls “apologists for pedophilia,” or those who argue that child sexual abuse isn’t always negative. The Rind Study, which appeared in the Psychological Bulletin in 1998, even demanded that the term “child sexual abuse” be replaced with less “judgmental” terms, such as “intergenerational intimacy.”
According to Leo, the Rind Study and its supporters have allowed pedophilia advocates to advance in society. Famous advocate Tom O’Carroll’s pedophilia book is actually on a Cambridge University course list.
Of course, the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the Rind Study, and its decision centers around the production of child pornography, and not the actual molestation of children. However, the court’s changes to the Child Pornography Prevention Act, coupled with sentiments like those expressed in the Rind Study, create a scary, volatile environment, teetering on the edge of toleration for child pornography and sexual abuse.
This is unacceptable. Pornography should involve consenting adults only. Unlike grown-ups, children have no real say over whether they want themselves depicted in pornography — actual or virtual.
It’s encouraging that not all members of the Supreme Court supported the decision. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia dissented on the entire decision, admitting that computer-generated child pornography is simply “high-tech kiddie porn.”
However, the majority concluded that “the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it.”
In most cases, I would agree. But when children are endangered, directly or indirectly, that’s a “sufficient reason” in itself.