Magick: Book 4 -
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will.
|
Friday, 26 May 2017
quote [ Kohey Nish: "My works prevent children from being sexually abused, just like war movies and shooter video games can contribute to peace" Kohey Nishi is an adult Japanese porn star whose marketable feature is his resemblance to a child. In an interview with Vice, the 24-year-old producer and actor said he intentionally markets himself as … ]
I don't even feel comfortable posting this. What. The. Fuck.
|
Hugh E. said @ 4:45pm GMT on 26th May
From Frontline:
In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 00-795, the Supreme Court struck down the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 (CPPA)... [which] broadened the definition of child pornography to include images that merely appear to be children engaged in sexually explicit conduct -- for example, images of adults digitally altered to look like children -- or that convey the impression that the individuals involved are minors.
The rationale behind the law was that it is not only the children involved in the creation of child pornography that are harmed, but that the images themselves are harmful because they incite pedophiles to abuse children.
Writing for the court, Justice Kennedy noted:
The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. ... The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or actions and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it might encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct.
Hugh E. said @ 4:48pm GMT on 26th May
I was thinking the same thing, but found this from Frontline (PBS):
In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 00-795, the Supreme Court struck down the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 (CPPA)... [which] broadened the definition of child pornography to include images that merely appear to be children engaged in sexually explicit conduct -- for example, images of adults digitally altered to look like children -- or that convey the impression that the individuals involved are minors.
The rationale behind the law was that it is not only the children involved in the creation of child pornography that are harmed, but that the images themselves are harmful because they incite pedophiles to abuse children.
Writing for the court, Justice Kennedy noted:
The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. ... The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or actions and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it might encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
Hugh E. said @ 4:45pm GMT on 26th May [Score:2 Informative]
I was thinking the same thing, but found this from Frontline (PBS):
In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 00-795, the Supreme Court struck down the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 (CPPA)... [which] broadened the definition of child pornography to include images that merely appear to be children engaged in sexually explicit conduct -- for example, images of adults digitally altered to look like children -- or that convey the impression that the individuals involved are minors.
The rationale behind the law was that it is not only the children involved in the creation of child pornography that are harmed, but that the images themselves are harmful because they incite pedophiles to abuse children.
Writing for the court, Justice Kennedy noted:
The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it. ... The Government has shown no more than a remote connection between speech that might encourage thoughts or actions and any resulting child abuse. Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it might encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct.
