|
Supreme Court was right to overturn act
 Michael Martin
|
|
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 Tuesday. The act made it a crime to create, distribute or possess "virtual" child pornography that used computer images of young adults rather than actual children.
The court's decision upholds First Amendment freedoms for the Internet.
"(The act) prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the Supreme Court's majority opinion.
Kennedy went on to say, "The statute prohibits the visual depiction of an idea � that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity � that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages."
Six justices agreed that the law violated the First Amendment in all respects. The Free Speech Coalition challenged the act. The coalition is made up of various adult entertainment businesses.
Many people argue that this is just another stake in the heart of family values. Jan LaRue, senior director of legal studies for the Family Research Council, said that the court could have done a better job in narrowing the power of the act to its original intent.
She told The New York Times that the court "failed children and left them vulnerable to sexual predators."
The Supreme Court was right to overturn this ban. This ban dealt with images and imaginary things, not real people. It would be in the best interest of this society if the government stayed out of the practice of thought control.
There is no doubt that child pornography is sick and demented. But you can't start prosecuting people for just thinking about it or presenting it in films or books. If you took that logic and applied it to other crimes then it creates a number of questions. Should we start locking up people who think about robbing a bank or cheating on their taxes? Or how about movies that show murders and other gruesome crimes?
Granted, cheating on your taxes and possessing child pornography are on two completely different ends of the spectrum, there is no reason for the government to start telling us what are the proper things to be thinking about.
This is where the First Amendment comes into play. The amendment guarantees the right for people to say what is on their mind or to express their opinions.
What people tend to forget is that you have to take the good with the bad. If the Constitution allows for people to step up and protest for Civil Rights, then you have to let the Klu Klux Klan have their time and talk about their message. It doesn't matter what side you agree with and consider morally right, they both have the freedom to speak. It's a necessary evil that the United States must endure to ensure our freedom.
The freedom to say or express what you are thinking or feeling is a beautiful thing. It is a guarantee that sets our nation apart from some other nations. Justices of the Supreme Court were worried that such great works of art such as William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet could come under attack under this act. The court's ruling made sure that everyone would be able to continue to enjoy such legendary pieces of art.
The court did us another favor by taking the government out of our lives. The more government regulates the way in which we live, the more it stifles people from becoming individuals.
I know that comparing beautiful works of literature and individuality to dirty old men with pictures of "digital" kids is a stretch, but the point is to be able to enjoy the fruits of freedom of expression you must be willing to endure the ugly side of this freedom.
In this day of the ever-expanding government, it is good to see the court limit the government's power. It shows that there is still some trust that the masses will be able to decide for themselves between what is right and wrong without the government making that decision for us.
Michael Martin can be reached at: [email protected]
|
|
|
|
|
|
