'These 'Virtual' Images in the Hands of a Pedophile Pose a Real Danger
To Real Children - They are Desensitized and Seduced Into Sex Acts.
The Threat is to Kids, Not the First Amendment,' FRC's LaRue says
WASHINGTON, April 24 /PRNewswire Interactive News Release/ -- On Monday,
Family Research Council, along with the National Law Center for Children and
Families and the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and
Families, filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the U.S. Supreme Court
arguing that the federal ban on computer generated child porn images is
constitutional. The case, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, involves a
review of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA), a bill that
expanded federal child porn statutes to include a ban on "virtual" or
computerized child porn. A copy of the amicus brief, signed by FRC's Senior
Director of Legal Studies Jan LaRue, is available at:
http://www.frc.org/frc.cfm?get=LB01D1 .
While federal child pornography laws prohibit the use of minors "in any
sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of
such conduct," pedophiles are using computer technology to produce a new form
of child pornography, which is not included under these statutes. Congress
expanded the definition of child pornography in the CPPA of 1996 to include
computer generated images of sexually explicit conduct if they are, or appear
to be, of a minor engaging in that conduct.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the statute unconstitutional,
but the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have upheld it. Of note: The
Ninth Circuit received the See No Evil award for its decision at FRC's 4th
annual Court Jester Awards ceremony last year.
In FRC's amicus brief, it is argued that the statute is valid for three
main reasons:
1. the new law only applies where the images are so realistic that they
appear to be real, whether created in whole or part by polaroid or
pentium;
2. that counterfeit child porn is a clear and present danger to children
because such realistic images would have the same incitement effect on
pedophiles to molest children and the same seductive effect on children
to become victims and, therefore, the act of knowingly producing,
distributing, or possessing such child sex images should not be
recognized as a type of protected expression under the First Amendment;
and
3. that such computer imaging technology is a threat to the effectiveness
of the existing child exploitation statutes. Law enforcement could not
find all the children in the images and defendants would argue that
there is an automatic reasonable doubt defense to prosecutions of even
"real" child porn under the old statute because it cannot be assumed
that what appears to be a picture of a child is actually of a real
child when computers can create the same authentic-looking images.
SOURCE Family Research Council
 back to top
Related links:
http://www.frc.org
http://www.frc.org/frc.cfm?get=LB01D1
CONTACT:
Kristin Hansen, or for radio: Kelly Green,
202-393-2100, both of the Family Research Council
|
