adult nude bodies with kids paces pasted on them- is this child pornography?

[KrazyHorse]

Supreme Court of Canada recently struck down the section of the child porn laws that deals with such phenomena (as well as drawings/stories) after a BC man challenged his conviction.

[MrFun]

Pasting children's faces onto adult, nude bodies is merely a loophole that pedophiles are using to thumb their noses at the current laws.

We need to slam that loophole shut permanently.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Supreme Court of Canada recently struck down the section of the child porn laws that deals with such phenomena (as well as drawings/stories) after a BC man challenged his conviction.

Did BC invoke the 'Notwithstanding clause'?

[Giancarlo]

Sorry, David... I am not American... so I am not 100% knowledgeable about your consitution. All I know in Spain and Italy there is zero tolerance towards all forms of child pornography. Italy has massive problems with this issue, and I think Berlusconi, will order severe crack downs. (while incinerating the murderous red brigade thugs)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Did BC invoke the 'Notwithstanding clause'?

No, because the man was convicted of federal offences.

[David Floyd]

Sorry, David... I am not American... so I am not 100% knowledgeable about your consitution. All I know in Spain and Italy there is zero tolerance towards all forms of child pornography. Italy has massive problems with this issue, and I think Berlusconi, will order severe crack downs. (while incinerating the murderous red brigade thugs)

I thought we were talking about porn in general.

Although that brings up an interesting point, basically that I see very little Constitutional justification for any sort of federal anti-porn law, regardless of form. I can't accept Interstate Commerce as the justification, because of things such as Original Intent and the fact that the feds would be using the exercise of a valid power as a pretext to usurp an power they don't have, which they can't do, according to John Marshall, although I can't recall the exact case citation offhand. Don't have a problem with State laws, as I oppose the 14th Amendment, but if I were to accept the 14th I'd have trouble justifying state anti-porn laws too.

Well, now that I sound like an insensitive ass (again) I'll be going now

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Although that brings up an interesting point, basically that I see very little Constitutional justification for any sort of federal anti-porn law, regardless of form.

Obscenity isn't protected by the 1st ammendment.

[David Floyd]

Define obscenity.

And there are other "implied rights" amendments, such as the 9th.

Not that I support child porn, I think it's sick.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Define obscenity.

Miller v. California gives us the current definition of the term.

[David Floyd]

Not familiar w/ the details of that case....does the definition include all porn, or just child porn? Just curious...

And I don't think the 1st Amendment is necessary for one to argue in favor of rights to look at or transmit porn.

Never really thought this one through, so I could be wrong of course.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Not familiar w/ the details of that case....does the definition include all porn, or just child porn? Just curious...

Just to get something out of the way: Porn is protected speech. Obscenity, however, is not.

For something to be considered obscene, a jury would have to find whether the content in question is obscene by asking:

"(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

[David Floyd]

OK, thanks...

In any case, wouldn't you agree, though, that you can use the 9th Amendment to protect pornography as well?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
In any case, wouldn't you agree, though, that you can use the 9th Amendment to protect pornography as well?

No one's ever brought it up in a case but I don't see how its necessary to bring in the 9th ammendment into the debate. It is typically brought in when the other ammendemnts don't provide for the result you want, ie. the right to an abortion, privacy, etc. Such is not the case here when the 1st ammendemnt will do quite nicely.

[Adalbertus]

Some decades ago, lots of countries had higher draft ages than 18. Except for military who want to get young people who have not yet get used to think themselves. Anyway thist has been reduced often for tactical reasons, namely to win the next elections.
The age to get certain rights is nearly entirely arbitrary because one can be able and responsible enough to drive a car with 16, while the other with 25 will be more dangerous. In the Roman republic, each political office had a specific minimum age a candidate had to have to be elected. For a consul, this was about 40 years. I think this wasn't a stupid idea.

OTOH, there is so much "art" or advertisement I simply would regard as pornography... I think there are really bigger problems in the abuse of children than some painted faces.

[David Floyd]

No one's ever brought it up in a case but I don't see how its necessary to bring in the 9th ammendment into the debate. It is typically brought in when the other ammendemnts don't provide for the result you want, ie. the right to an abortion, privacy, etc. Such is not the case here when the 1st ammendemnt will do quite nicely.

Well, I'm actually using the 9th to question federal anti-child porn laws.
Article 1 Section 8 also provides no power to ban such a thing - I already explained my opposition to the use of the Interstate Commerce Clause (the original intent and pretext arguments).