Remember Today... For Today, A Piece of Freedom Was Ripped From Our Hands

Today, ladies and gentlemen, the Supreme Court of the United States (hereafter referred to as SCOTUS) took a proverbial dump on our First Amendment Right to freedom of speech (see "High court upholds child pornography law" - Reuters).   Here's a summary of the ruling:

"The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a provision of a 2003 federal law making it a crime to promote or present material as child pornography.  (Author's Note - Particularly, the provision bars the advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing or soliciting of material in a way intended to cause others to believe it contains illegal child pornography. Violators face a sentence of at least five years in prison.     

... by a 7-2 vote rejected the argument that one part of the law illegally infringed on free-speech or other rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The justices overturned a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that struck down the provision on the grounds the government cannot suppress lawful free speech.

Opponents of the law argued it sweeps too broadly and could be applied to popular award-winning movies like "Lolita," "Traffic," "American Beauty" and "Titanic" that depict adolescent sex." - Reuters

I am a staunch defender of the one's right to say/present whatever they  damn well please, but even I draw the line when it comes to the exploitation of children by sick perverts; however, do not be fooled by the headline of the article.  The provision of this law (that was ruled upon today) bars the advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing or soliciting of material in a way intended to cause others to believe it contains illegal child pornography; with "intended" being the key word (which is why many opponents of the provision came from the entertainment industry).   

In other words, SCOTUS (and the Bush Administration (particularly former U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft and good ol' Dubya), who originally signed the provision into law in 2003... which was actually a revision to a similar version passed in 2002 but was held unconstitutional by SCOTUS for prohibiting protected free speech, because the earlier version of the law included language pertaining to "computer-generated images that appeared to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct") has deemed that we, the citizens of this great country, are too stupid to differentiate real child pornography, from simulated "underage" sexual liaisons.   

Proponents of the law have hidden behind the banner of "saving the children", but what it amounts to is that you and I can't depict, in ANY creative expression, underage sex.  That's right; no Bob Seger's "Against the Wind", no Sam Mendes' "American Beauty", no Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita"... all because...uh, we're in danger!  That's it!  You and I are in danger, from being fooled into watching kiddie porn... oh, you didn't know?!  Well, it's everywhere!  Thank goodness the government will protect our fragile minds by placing those convicted of advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing or soliciting such material in prison for 5 years... because our prisons are full enough at the moment with people serving long sentences for minor crimes (hello, marijuana laws in conjunction with mandatory minimum sentencing).

Jesus H. Christ, what year is this?!  Where did the country I love, find these idiot politicians and Supreme Court Justices?  Even Scalia voted to uphold the provision!  The only two Justices I can have any respect for in this matter are the two most unlikely (IMHO) Justices, to be defenders of a libertarian view in the matter, Souter and Ginsberg (both being the only dissenters to the majority opinion).  Souter correctly stated in his dissent, "... the court majority allows the new prohibition to suppress free speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment."

Well, enough of my rambling on this matter, for the moment... I'm saving some of my thoughts for replies to YOUR comments.  So... comment away because I hope you are as disappointed in the Supreme Court as I am today; and if you're not, I am more than willing to listen to your arguments with an open mind as to why not (however, I probably won't agree with you, no matter how hard you try). So, here's your chance to vent or not, post away...

- Zac Papantoniou (Guest Writer)

Comments

[John Anderson]

How about the Frankenstein movie with the monster {played by Karloff] taking the young girl by the hand and leading her into the woods? The one that I think was passed under the infamous Code of Decency or whatever it was called?

[John Anderson]

A bit of semi-related trivia:

You've heard the phrase "Banned in Boston" from the past. Did you know one Walt Disney movie was banned on sexual grounds, but in Chicago rather than Boston?

Yep. The Vanishing Prairie was banned for showing the birth of a buffalo calf.

[Steve T.]

"Romeo and Juliet" definitely implies illicit, underage, teenage sex. No one has ever doubted that. Until Zeffirelli's 1968 movie, the two young lovers had always been played by actors a bit long in the tooth for the roles but, hey, that's what the audience's imagination is for.

I take it that if this law could be enforced retroactively, it could be used to prosecute Henry Irving for advertising his production, in which he himself played that statutory rapist Romeo. Of course, this was in 1882, and Irving was 44, but the law's the law. Right?

[Paul]

I'm so goddamn sick of government telling us that they know what is better for us than we do. Now obviously I don't approve of child porn, but artistic reference to adolescent sex is not child porn, and this seems to be yet another instance of politicians covering their eyes and yelling "no, kids don't have sex ever!" These politicians that are "protecting" us are the same ones that refuse to accept that comprehensive sex education is more effective to have in schools. Great, before we know it, we are gonna be just like England.

[Jerry]

What are the SCOTUS justices going to try and supress millions of years of youthful hormones and pretend that adolescent teens don't think about sex every minute of the day? And then think for a minute that there aren't teens having sex? If artistic expression of youthful sexuality is quote banned, is that going to make people believe that it doesn't exist.

I'm so sick of people spouting "It's for the children", every time this phrase is uttered (It makes me want to puke) common sense is thrown out the window.

[Bob L]

Who defines what sex is? This is getting as bad as an Islamic society.

[mk]

I saw a pretty good Australian film this weekend called "Mr. Reliable". It showed 2 teenagers faking awkward sex for about 5 seconds.

Hard to believe that would be cause for a criminal case.

[Hermes Ten]

"Even Scalia voted for...." Are you kidding? Scalia, that evil lying corrupt authoritarian who says torture is not punishment and apparently has never read the 5th Amendment, voting for more State power, is a surprise to you?

This is only the beginning. Our now Catholic Court is going to be assaulting what remains of our freedom for a long time to come.