Grandparents and pornographers

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by gb93433, Apr 10, 2007.

  1. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=25365

    Grandparents and pornographers
    By Alan Sears
    Apr 10, 2007

    SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. (BP)--If children are indeed the future of this country, then the nation's highest court will soon decide how much protection our future deserves.

    After a disturbing decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, the Supreme Court has agreed to review next term whether a child pornography law -- the PROTECT Act of 2003 -- is unconstitutionally overbroad or vague.

    The 11th Circuit put the future of our children in jeopardy when it reversed the conviction of child pornographer Michael Williams. The court said, "Non-commercial, non-inciteful promotion of illegal child pornography, even if repugnant, is protected speech under the First Amendment."

    In essence, the court expressed trepidation that the PROTECT Act would criminalize the pandering of material as "child pornography" when in fact it did not meet the legal definition of that term. But it's a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    As an example, the court expressed concern that a "proud and computer savvy grandparent" might be subject to prosecution under the PROTECT Act, simply for sending an e-mail with the subject line "Good pics of kids in bed."

    This assertion would be laughable were it not so tragic. The U.S. Department of Justice argued as much in asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, saying that the 11th Circuit read the section in question "more broadly than its language warrants."

    During my tenure serving the Reagan administration as a federal prosecutor and as the director of the attorney general's Commission on Pornography, we did not invest our time persecuting grandparents for innocent letters. The feds never went knocking on Grandma's door. We did, however, spend countless hours attempting to navigate the legal roadblocks that the ACLU, the pornographers and their allies constructed to make it difficult to protect children from the abuse and exploitation of child pornography. And this latest argument is just another in a long line of roadblocks put up by the ACLU and its allies that protects the perverted desires and profits of child pornographers at the expense of innocent children.

    In 1982, the Supreme Court was given its first chance to address the issue of child pornography in New York v. Ferber. The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the court in this case, arguing that child pornography is protected by the First Amendment. Thankfully, the justices rejected this argument and ruled unanimously that child pornography was without First Amendment protection.

    This has not deterred the ACLU as it continues to champion the legal demands of pornographers, pedophiles and child molesters. In Iowa, the ACLU was instrumental convincing a federal judge to strike down a law that prohibited convicted sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools and day-care centers. Fortunately, an appeals court overturned the ruling. In Indiana, the ACLU defended an alleged pedophile convicted three times of molesting children. After he was released, he talked in a group therapy session about visiting a local park in order to fantasize about having sex with the young children playing there.

    When I served on the Commission on Pornography, I heard the ACLU's national legislative counsel testify that all child pornography -- no matter how heinous -- once created, is fully "protected" by the First Amendment. The ACLU added that no government should be allowed to limit the distribution of child pornography between "consenting adults."

    Unfortunately, because of the gross misapplication of evolving technology, the ACLU and its allies may get their wish if the Supreme Court does not respond strongly to the case before it.

    The 11th Circuit objected to another phrase in the PROTECT Act, which amended the definition of child pornography to include "any digital or computer-generated image that is 'indistinguishable' from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The 11th Circuit contends that such material can be produced without harming children and must therefore be protected.

    A reasonable observer can easily discover that the judges ignored several key facts about this provision. The term "indistinguishable" means that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would "conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor...." Not only does this exposure to digital pornography still promote the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, it also -- if allowed -- provides pornographers with an incredibly effective legal defense. Already, defendants have begun to claim that actual child pornography images in their possession are only virtual images, forcing the government to find proof that each anonymous child shown is real. Because of the technological advances of the 21st century, this burden is not only prohibitively expensive, but also unachievable, issuing a free pass to pornographers throughout the country. It leaves countless exploited children as permanent victims.

    The PROTECT Act was created for this purpose -- to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. As Congress noted, "The Government thus has a compelling interest in ensuring that the criminal prohibitions against child pornography remain enforceable and effective."

    Our children are the future of this nation, and they must be protected from criminal pornographers. The context is clear. Protecting the welfare of children clearly takes precedence over concerns about the bizarre desires and profit margins of the porn world, and there's no doubt about the fact that the two are in conflict here. It's imperative that our nation's high court see through the smokescreen and recognize that it's our children's liberty and future that are truly at risk. All that is left is for the court to act ... and to PROTECT.
     
  2. Benjamin

    Benjamin
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    4,893
    Likes Received:
    112
    Good example of the ACLU at work trying to create more loopholes to promote their perverted agendas. Why do we allow this? [​IMG]
     
  3. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    A related aside:

    I have a friend who tracks down child pornographers. Over the past few months, they have run into an interesting problem:

    The biggest purveyors of child pornography are the children themselves, using digital equipment, PayPal type accounts, etc.

    He gave me all sorts of signs to look for, but he wanted me to pass along one piece of advice: "Parents, make sure you know what your kids are doing."

    That being said, if the law is unconstitutional, then it needs to be scrapped and start over. That's a slippery slope that we've already started down, but no need to accelerate the process.
     
  4. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    You do not have to wonder who is behind that kind of sophistication beyond what a child knows how to do.
     
  5. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am raising my g/son. He just turned 13. He is a good boy, but I am not leaving anything to chance. I shut down my computer when I go to bed and he can't get on it without my password.

    The only time he is allowed Internet access is for school work when I am in the same room with him.

    It makes me sick to see him type in an innocent word for a school project and have a porn page pop up.

    They better leave the Grandparents alone and go after the porn sites. If the porn sites were not there, the kids couldn't access them! [​IMG]
     
  6. Friend of God

    Friend of God
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,946
    Likes Received:
    0
    That or risk incurring the wrath of Barnabas, Dr. Bob, C4K, and the dreaded I Am Blessed 16!
     
  7. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,430
    Likes Received:
    72
    Unfortunately, the porn sites will always be there. If you could ever get them eradicated from the US (which wouldn't happen), you'd still have foreign porn.

    The safest approach is your kind of method.
     
  8. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    I own the domain www.hopeofglory.net and therefore my email is @hopeofglory.net

    Because so many porn sites use "glory" in their name, my Christian web site gets filtered out by most spam filters.

    I've almost had to quit using that email and have to use my business one instead. Not that any exposure is good for business, but I like using my email as a witness tool, because people would backtrack it and take a look at my site.

    FWIW, most of the child pornography is not spread through web sites.

    As an aside, I was doing a search for a picture of a Ferarri Enzo that I saw that had caught fire and melted everything but the wheels. My wife wanted to see it. On the first page of results, there were very vivid images of both straight and homosexual porn.

    Google is a very useful tool. I think this is just another example of satanic forces taking something good and corrupting so that a) good people can't use it and b) good people with good intents get tempted.
     
  9. Jon-Marc

    Jon-Marc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    I heard about a woman who collected Barbie Dolls. She typed that in and clicked "search", and you can imagine the kind of Websites that came up.:eek:
     
  10. Bismarck

    Bismarck
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nobody will acknowledge what I will imply.

    But no one can deny that there is allot of money in Child Pornography...

    and that the US Supreme Court just made allot of "Money" very happy with its decision.

    That is, no one can deny that the US Supreme Court just made a decision that (suspiciously) benefits the Child Pornography rackett, where allot of money changes hands behind the scenes...
     
  11. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree. It it's bad law, it needs to be rewritten. If it's vague enough and broad enough that the grandparent in question could be in trouble, it's bad law. Because of the way things are, the entire law would have to be rewritten, not just delete the offending parts.

    BTW, if you have a wireless router, make sure it is secure. One way that many child pornographers work is they drive around in neighborhoods until they find a hotspot. They also will buy used computers and get others' info to operate.

    They're tricky and getting trickier.
     
  12. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Don't you mean the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals? The SCOTUS has not heard this case as of yet, although in 2003 they did review the Protect Act and its relation to public libraries.
     

Share This Page

Loading...