** Continued From: Almost a Law! - Part #1
The second attachment to the Amber Alert Bill is really a modification of legislation that was ruled unconstitutional. The original ban on virtual CP was rule too vague by the Supreme Court. In it’s original form; it would have banned Romeo and Juliet as well as created images of horrific acts. The new 'improvements' to the ban on virtual CP are kinda creepy to re-print. The texts describes all of the various acts forbidden but the most important portion of the legislation to us is this:
"I want good laws. I want laws that protect children. We all do. What we don't need are band-aid solutions to gaping concerns." |
".such visual (depiction) is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable (as defined in section 1466A) from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;.
And
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating this section that the production of the alleged child pornography did not involve the use of a minor or an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense under this section involving such use.
(2) A violation of, or an attempt or conspiracy to violate, this section which involves child pornography as defined in section 2256(8)(A) or (C) shall be punishable without regard to the affirmative defense set forth in paragraph (1).'.
SEC. 512. RECORDKEEPING TO DEMONSTRATE MINORS WERE NOT USED IN PRODUCTION OF PORNOGRAPHY."
Untitled Page
They way I read it, the text states that it’s up to the creator of the image to prove that no actual children were harmed or used in it’s generation. The way I read the text it also says if the image is offensive enough, it doesn’t really matter if real kids are used or not. They still want to ban all images that depict CP real or not real. That’s good. CP is evil. Sex crimes are always about the abuse of power. Children need our protection because they are the most defenseless members of human society.
The problem with banning created images is that an image is not an act. An image is an idea. When we begin to legislate ideas, we get into some very dangerous territory. Is a created depiction of CP like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater? Can a created image make a person commit an illegal act or bring harm to a child? If grandma paints a watercolor of her naked grandbaby, scans it, posts it on her homepage and then it ends up posted all over the newsgroups by pederast sickos, is grandma guilty of creating virtual CP? I know real CP when I see it. I’m just not so sure about our lawmakers.
Most adult webmasters recognize a PhotoShopped image on first viewing. Adult graphic designers can name the filters used and whether or not a head was superimposed on a body. We hate and report Internet CP probably more than any collection of private citizens. While the government is stalling on petty details, the adult Internet is screaming "Here’s the CP! This is the site! This is the country of origin! This is the webmaster! Here’s your proof!"
I want good laws. I want laws that protect children. We all do. What we don’t need are band-aid solutions to gaping concerns.
Why all these amendments and provisions and improvements? Where is the real law? Where is the Adult Internet Act?