Child pornography is obviously a disgusting evil, but the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision to uphold a ban on virtual child pornography seems troubling on the face. Consider the nuances of the ruling:
The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law that also prohibits possession of child porn. It replaced an earlier law against child pornography that the court struck down as unconstitutional. The law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child porn. It does not require that someone actually possess child pornography. Opponents have said the law could apply to movies like “Traffic” or “Titanic” that depict adolescent sex.
Emphasis mine. Few would object to tossing creators, distributors, or even possessors of child pornography in jail, but it seems a bit of a stretch to punish someone for distributing images that aren't child pornography but are merely claimed to be. On the other hand, it's illegal to commission a murder-for-hire, even if the murder doesn't end up taking place. Few people object to that law.
(HT: The Pirate and Outside the Beltway.)
Leave a comment