Unless you are someone who either makes money from child pornography or enjoys pornography child pornography, you probably find protecting any aspect of that sleazy business abhorrent.
In two recent cases, the Supreme Court tried to balance issues of free speech versus child protection laws. The first, decided on April 16,Ashcroft v.
I know it when I see it
The second, decided on June 23,United States v. In order for a library to receive federal assistance it must install software that blocks images that show obscenity or child pornography and prevent court from accessing this material.
Both laws enjoy widespread public support, but raise freedom of speech questions. Let's look at the issues considered by the courts in these cases.
The Free Speech Coalition, which is an adult-entertainment trade association, filed suit in district court questioning two aspects aleah on directsex CPPA.
Congress, when it was considering the language for the law, was seeking to control new computer technology that allowed computer alteration of innocent images of real children or images created from scratch that simulated children posed in sexual acts.
This law expanded existing bans on the more usual sort of child pornography. Congress believed that while no real cases were harmed by the production of these computer-generated images, feeding the appetites of pedophiles or child molesters could harm real children.
I know it when I see it - Wikipedia
The Free Speech Coalition said that while it opposes child pornography, the law could cases legitimate films pornography photographs produced by its members. The group did not challenge the part of the law that banned the use of identifiable children, but only the part that related to computer-altered sexual images. Court images that do not depict a recognizable child engaging in sexual acts are not a crime and do not have a victim.