On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:47:34 -0400, Mike Ross
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 May 2008 18:49:47 +0100, Dissenter wrote:
>>Your 'pesky First Amendment' didn't stop them from banning child ..
>>All the same arguments will be brought out to stop 'violent .'.
>
>A matter of different tests. The only reason child . was able to be banned is
>that it served a legitimate state interest,
What 'state interest'?
>and involved photos of activity that
>would under every conceivable circumstance be criminal
So what? Photographs of criminal acts are reproduced daily on the
media.
> - it's impossible to say
>of child . 'it was only acting - there was no *real* penetration', for
>instance.
Plenty of people have been prosecuted for possessing '. posing'
type pictures, even of clothed children.
>So also, drawings, paintings, and computer simulations are NOT banned.
>American judges are very sensitive to anything that smacks of prior restraint,
>and will give it strict scrutiny.
I would have thought that any censorship of this kind is 'prior
restraint'. No-one can look at what is banned to determine whether the
banning is reasonable.
--
Dissenter |