JF make 245
JF Nav
JF Nav
Creation Date: 2003-01-08
I might catch flak for this rant, but I feel that it is necessary. I heard Bill O'Reilly talking for a few minutes during the vacation and he was talking to a woman who was trying to get hotels to discontinue selling pay-per-view pornography. Her cause obviously had problems. The first was that the porn makes money for hotels. It would be like selling a cash cow for beans (the non-magical type, I might add). The second is that the porn is completely optionally chosen by the viewer. It's not hurting anyone who isn't asking for it and paying for it. However, it's not a big issue with me right now. We have a war imminent, constitution being violated by two mega-fascist laws, and hackers being persecuted by the FBI unjustly. I'm not going to spend any more time than I already have on fighting for the right to hotel porn. But Mr. O'Reilly did make this rant possible by mentioning that the woman ought to be fighting the virtual child pornography ruling made by the Supreme Court. WTF is that? Well, by now you know what this picture is, right? It is ultra-softcore virtual child pornography. So what is the definition of pornography? It depends who you ask. Many folk back in the 1800s up to 1950s believed that the show of an ankle is pornography. In Afghanistan, a girl showing an ankle is still (even after the Taliban were ousted by the US military invasion) sometimes considered grounds for stoning. So I probably shouldn't show this in Afghanistan, but there are two worse crimes here according to what I know of Muslim religion: using the internet (the tool of evil) and making a sculpture of a person (idoltry). But enough with the bs, this is not pornography enough to produce a case that would get me put in jail here in the US. But it makes a point which I will be explaining in this essay: exactly what is pornography and what is bad about it?

Pornography is anything dealing with sex. Specifically, laws have stated that has to do with display of genetalia. Of course, books without pictures can be pornographic. Books can describe sexual acts in great detail. So it isn't about pictures as much as sex. People sometimes like using the word pornographic to describe really good things that deal nothing with sex such as muscle cars, computers, clothing, and apartments. While this may seem like a simple misuse, it brings us closer to the true meaning of pornography. Pornography uses a person's desires to give them pleasure (usually sexually). So what is wrong with desire and pleasure? Usually both of those words are connected with love, a terrific virtue. But that is the problem itself, it replaces love, a virtue with hedonism based on interaction with non-living things. Instead of loving and interacting with people, the person is getting pleasure from cold metal, paper, electrons. While pornography is not the worst sin a person can commit, it's simply not good.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court's ruling. That's right. Child pornography is immoral in two seperate ways than normal pornography. The first is that it exploitation of the children is required for it to be produced in the first place. This is what the Supreme Court will be discussing. No matter what anyone says or any situation, it just cannot be justified. Minors are simply too young to be having sex and most teen parents are perfect examples of why. Most people who have problems who call up the LoveLine radio program have been sexually abused as children. It results in millions of dollars in therapy which usually makes problems worse. Now, on to the other end: the viewer. The viewer is not a well-adjusted person and may actually be repeating what they see. But even if they do not, they fantasize about it, which is similarly immoral.

So now onto the topic of virtual child pornography. It was as illegal as real life child pornography for a while, but recently the Supreme Court made this ruling that says that computer generated child pornography is protected free speech. Why? It takes out the exploitation of children part. No children need to be exploited in order to create the product. Viewing it is still done by the same people plus or minus a few. We can see that no harm is done in the process of creating the product or viewing it. Thus it is protected by the first amendment fully. However distasteful it is, it is protected free speech. If the Supreme Court allows one protected speech to be banned just for public opinion, another will follow. The Supreme Court obviously has a line drawn in the sand on the First Amendment. People under 18 are not allowed to view pornography unless it of significant artistic value (which can be said for about anything since the human form has inspired such works as Michaelangelo's Venus de Milo and David). Simply put, without any direct harm caused, there is no reason for a protected free speech to be illegalized.

But what about the viewers? This is the main argument against the Supreme Court's ruling. The Supreme Court's ruling is not helping families nor average people, and not even businesses very much. It is helping artists who create that type of art. But don't we want to hurt this type of person? We want to lock them up, give them something productive to do, force them to conform to social standards of human dignity, right? Well, what they are doing is protected free speech. We can only hope that they will do the right thing.

You probably don't see what's coming next. While the particular instance may be appauling to many, what justifies the ruling is that it sets the standard for freedom of speech. If the Supreme Court bans one form of free speech because the people who practice it are not socially-acceptable, then there is nothing to stop the next least socially-acceptable form of free speech to be banned: techno dancing is quickly becoming illegal because people who use drugs like to dance. I have news for the fascists who are enacting these anti-techno laws: people who use drugs like laws, so I am going to illegalize laws. It is important for the Supreme Court to uphold all free speech equally so that free speech will not become a thing of the past. We are at a point where half of the population of the US is willing to give up their Constitutional rights for no reason. Many anti-Constitutionalists (aka fascists or totalitarians) are citing that the Constitution was written by people who lived 200 years ago and that they had no idea about terrorism and riots. Tell that to the terrorist group: the Boston Tea Party of 1773, Ghandi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. No amount of freedom and rights we lose will make us any safer from terrorists. The real terrorists are those who try to take our freedom and rights while killing innocent people around the world with laws, planes, bombs, and guns. The US Government is the perfect definition of a terrorist.
JF Nav
Home Characters Making Of Technical Mail News Links |< First < Prev Next > Latest >|  bandwidth version Goto Scene