On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:47:14 +0100, Dissenter wrote:
>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'?
The protection of children.
>>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.
Aye, but with child . there's always the possibility - the liklihood, in some
cases - that the only reason the assaults took place was to produce the
photographs.
>> - 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.
In the USA? I'm honestly not sure about that. In any case, would you want your
children encouraged to 'pose .ally'?
>>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.
Exactly - it's prior restraint, so the courts will tie a can to it PDQ, unless
the state can show that 1. it serves a vital and compelling state interest and
2. a ban is the least restrictive means necessary to further that interest.
AFAICS there's zero chance of them doing either.
Ignore it, move along, nothing to see here; this is legislative grandstanding
which won't go anywhere.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within' |