|
|
Post by malleodei on Nov 18, 2013 14:51:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Nov 18, 2013 17:04:38 GMT -6
I don't know. I think it ought to be possible to block searches to unambiguously criminal sites, but I am not up to speed on the technology. I suppose the concern was "collateral damage", i.e. inadvertent blocking of legitimate searches. Any parent who has implemented parental controls on the computer for their kids knows how buggy the controls can be. I would think it would be easier to simply set up dummy sites to bust folks for soliciting child pornography and prostitution. At any rate, child pornography is not protected speech, IMO. Wonder if Trout has a legal opinion on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2013 17:43:25 GMT -6
I don't know. I think it ought to be possible to block searches to unambiguously criminal sites, but I am not up to speed on the technology. I suppose the concern was "collateral damage", i.e. inadvertent blocking of legitimate searches. Any parent who has implemented parental controls on the computer for their kids knows how buggy the controls can be. I would think it would be easier to simply set up dummy sites to bust folks for soliciting child pornography and prostitution. At any rate, child pornography is not protected speech, IMO. Wonder if Trout has a legal opinion on this. All rights, even the most fundamental rights, are subject to being limited where damage to a third party victim must occur. There are lots of examples, no shouting fire in a theater, no machine guns allowed under the second amendment, no refusing life-saving emergency medical care for your kids based upon religion, that sort of thing. I don't think that it is a close call that child porn has very real victims. So free speech is trumped here, and maybe not even applicable in the first place. Where is the protected artistic/creative expression in child porn? |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Nov 18, 2013 18:51:24 GMT -6
Where is the protected artistic/creative expression in child porn? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that creativity or artistry have any real bearing on whether something is speech or not. Exhibit A would have to be campaign spam. For once, we all seem to agree on something--my only quibble is what argument to make against it. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Nov 18, 2013 20:10:31 GMT -6
My nephew is a programmer for a Google, if I remember I'll ask next week if new technology made this possible? Whatever the reason, it's nice to see something is being done about child porn.
|
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Nov 19, 2013 9:39:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by malleodei on Nov 19, 2013 9:41:37 GMT -6
Or for that matter, where is the creative / artistic expression in any kind of porn? To me, the question seems to be one of where society draws the line. And over time, that line changes, which can be a real problem, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Nov 19, 2013 10:54:30 GMT -6
Again, I don't think that creativity or artistry are necessary for something to be classified as speech.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Nov 19, 2013 10:59:11 GMT -6
Or for that matter, where is thein the creative / artistic expression in any kind of porn? To me, the question seems to be one of where society draws the line. And over time, that line changes, which can be a real problem, IMHO. Spoken like someone who has all the porn he needs on his hard drive and doesn't care about other people's needs. Share the porn, share the porn, share the porn!!!!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2013 11:04:21 GMT -6
Where is the protected artistic/creative expression in child porn? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that creativity or artistry have any real bearing on whether something is speech or not. Exhibit A would have to be campaign spam. For once, we all seem to agree on something--my only quibble is what argument to make against it. There are all kinds of "speech" and in certain cases an initial question before we even get to the 1st Amendment, is: "Is this expression speech at all?" It is only recently that the law became settled (sort of) on whether non-verbal expressions are speech at all, subject to 1st Amendment protection. The flag burning cases highlight the evolution of this aspect of 1st Amendment law. This might/might not be relevant to child porn. My comment you quoted above was a very hurried over-simplification of a tricky issue. Sorry about that. The Supremes have applied the "Miller Test" to porn cases to decide whether expressions that might be speech are "obscene". An obscene expression can be banned without a 1st Amendment foul. This wiki has a good summary of the Miller test, but we'd have to do some time consuming research to see if it is current and accurate on all the nuanced points. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
"The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2] It has three parts:
* Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied."As you see, artistic merit figures into the definition of "obscene" and might be the deciding factor in determining what expressions (i.e. child porn) can be banned. I conflated too many concepts in my original post. It would have been better to say that artistic merit is a factor in deciding whether or not it is protected, as opposed to whether or not it is speech. J |
|
