Supreme court: freedom of speech doesn't apply to internet

[BustedS13]

i don't usually bitch about the government on the internet. in general i think things are fine just fine. but this crosses the line. i understand that we should protect children, but fuck you, if i want to make pedophile jokes i should be allowed.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/D7FC89F945378CA28625744F0010FA56?OpenDocument

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave prosecutors a powerful tool Monday to attack the spread of child pornography online, ruling that people who send messages over the computer offering or seeking sexual images of children can be sent to prison, even when no such pornography exists.

The 7-2 ruling, which upheld a five-year-old law, rejected the claim that such messages are protected as free speech.
what the fuck. how long until me typing "you have any coke" lands me in jail?

[Daniel.]

Goodbye first amendment.

[just1pepsi]

This is exactly how our rights as US citizens get removed. This seemingly only applies to child pornography (which nobody doubts is bad.) But it opens up the possiblity of it being used to kill part of our freedom of speech. This happens all the time in Washington. Where will it stop?

[stiizy]

Why don't they just take away all of our constitutional rights!! that seems to be the direction this country is taking..next thing you know America will be a communist or dictatorship country.. i think messages should be freedom of speech!! we are speaking through typing no??

[exitspeed]

I understand what you guys are saying, but it is a fucking problem. A sick fucking problem at that.

[kyoru]

i gotta agree, at first this will apply to child pr0n, but then spread to other things, slowly limiting our rights

[stiizy]

oh yea child porn is gross and just down right an unhuman way to make a buck but target them not everyone else right?

[BustedS13]

I understand what you guys are saying, but it is a fucking problem. A sick fucking problem at that.

no, it is DEFINITELY a problem. but infringing our constitutional rights is not the proper way to fix the issue.

[240trainee]

no, it is DEFINITELY a problem. but infringing our constitutional rights is not the proper way to fix the issue.

truth :ughd:

[exitspeed]

Does anyone have a better solution? Orrrrr just ignore it altogether?

[stiizy]

What can exactly be done they don't care about what we have to say they're just gonna keep running things the way they see fit for America not from our civilian point of view

[just1pepsi]

Prosecute when actual evidence is present is my solution. - to the kid porn problem.

Getting out and electing officials who actually represent public opinion is my solution to the political problem. People as citizens have got to get educated.. In my opinion its no surprise that the public education system in this country is so behind, its intentional. If you keep your general population dumb, they will do whatever you tell them..


Is internet kid porn such a huge epidemic that we need to throw our consitutional rights away? I often wonder how big these supposed "epidemics" are that we get shoved down our throats during the evening news.

[eastcoastS14]

yeah this is fucked up....basically saying that its criminal to talk about it even if the porn itself doesnt exist, the thing about free speech is even if you dont like what the person is saying they have the right to do so until it becomes tied to a crime....so if some perv asks where he can get child porn, as gross as it is...hes still protected until he actually gets it, because he's done nothing illeagal by asking....like busted said, could you then be prosecuted for asking about drugs online? or maybe saying you want to kick the presidents ass? I dont think anyone here would ever argue for or support the child porn industry, but you have to watch the govt very closely when things like this start happening and they start taking away constitutional rights "for your safety" thats when a lot of things start slipping below the radar.

[status:one]

The criminal offense is the speech that offers to sell or trade in illegal material."I can't really imagine anyone really joking about wanting to buy child pornography. Anyway.... i didn't read the entire article, but what exactly is the punishment for jokingly saying to someone... "you have any pics of your kid sister naked?" Oh wait... maybe i'm in trouble for just saying that.

I think this law was passed as more of a precaution to those registered offenders that can be monitored. If they were to say something in an email, then law enforcement could move in to ensure no illegal material is being sold or traded and no children were being harmed.

[SimpleSexy180]

you have got to be kidding me. we all understand that shit is horrible, but seriously thats no reason to try and break own our first amendment. What i see as even a bigger issue is the citizens would actually let this happen thinking that we need government to protect us all the time. We have let ourselves become powerless and just let the gov step all over us.

everybody's excuse is always "they are trying to protect us" Fuck that we need to gain knowledge and protect ourselves.

[SimpleSexy180]

I can't really imagine anyone really joking about wanting to buy child pornography. Anyway.... i didn't read the entire article, but what exactly is the punishment for jokingly saying to someone... "you have any pics of your kid sister naked?" Oh wait... maybe i'm in trouble for just saying that.

YOU WILL GET IN TROUBLE for saying that about someones sister. thats what eventually will happen.


I think this law was passed as more of a precaution to those registered offenders that can be monitored. If they were to say something in an email, then law enforcement could move in to ensure no illegal material is being sold or traded and no children were being harmed.

thats always the type of excuse. we find some loophole to go around to make it seem OK.

[HyperTek]

I can imagine im chatting with my friend on aim, and we end up direct connecting to send pictures of our cars, and then eventually the conversation moves to girls and we start sending girl pics, then the friend perhaps slips up and sends a pic of a underage girl.. BAM WE IN TROUBLE! lol

[StaticX27]

So lemme get this straight, if I am in any way related to asking or being asked about "illegal" materials, I'm liable because I live in America.

Okay, sounds like it's time for the prince of Africa to stop asking for my bank account number, and just spam me with e-mail asking me for kiddy porn. He's in Africa, so laws don't apply to him, but I'm screwed because I'm living here! Now unless you want the spamming to continue for the next year, pay me $10,000 or be forced to be monitored constantly due to the patriot act. Those African princes aren't stupid. They now have a surefire way to milk us for money.

[status:one]

thats always the type of excuse. we find some loophole to go around to make it seem OK.

Exactly right.

[WanganRunner]

Does anyone have a better solution? Orrrrr just ignore it altogether?

Deport all convicted pedophiles to Iraq. Drop them in the desert with no clothes, food, water, or equipment.

[just1pepsi]

Supposedly a big problem that law enforcement faces with pedophiles is that they are scared to lock them up w/ the regular prisoners due to the well documented fact that pedophiles get dealt with using extreme prejudice. It seems pretty regular you hear about pedophiles getting suspended sentences (which is legalese for being let back out in the public.) Alot of lawmakers would rather innocent people be put in harms way than the criminal themselves. We need to throw these guys in prison, and if they get killed in prison, thats life..

[flip3d]

It should be like Vegas. What happens on the internet, stays on the internet.

[HyperTek]

i wouldnt put pedophiles in teh same catagory as rappests, these nutcases jus need to be straigthend out.... our tax dollars puts them in jails

[Pank]

the problem is, this is how it all starts
"oh we made it illegal to talk about it and it worked great! now lets make talking about drugs illegal! yay we won the war on drugs, lets make talking about breaking traffic laws illegal! yay that worked! lets find something else!"

repeat untill we all move to canada or finland

[midnight zenki]

Time to stack your guns and ones....This will snowball into a larger infringement of free speech rights. This andl pending cases that regard the 2nd Amendment which will soon be heard in should rightly have us all concerned as the shift from a free and open society has begun to turn into an out of control slide into police state under the guise of your protection. V for Vendetta anyone:squint:

Of course kiddie porn is disgusting but there are things in place to already incarcerate these sickos such as evidence gathering procedures and stings i.e Dateline style. Even computer spying which is already probably covered under the Patriot act are better methods than hearsay, which is exactly what words with no evidentiary(sp) backing constitutes. This nation needs to stop being knee-jerk reactionary based sheep and examine issues and solutions a little closer before more of our freedoms are stripped from us all.

[steve shadows]

The same type of government that protects child molestors rights is handing down this decision...seem strange?

If we just fed them to lions how many do you think would keep being sick assholes?

LIONS, i said it.


http://www.bigcatrescue.org/images/lionJudaheat2.jpg


yum yum


Does anyone have a better solution? Orrrrr just ignore it altogether?

Try to think for a minute.

Think harder. Keep thinking?

ok.

Well if you havent figured out that this is the exact wrong way to solve this problem, you don't deserve to have any constitutional rights in the first place and would probably be most happy in GB (20-50 years from now).

[Matej]

Rioting needs to come back in style. It was cool when people stood up refusing to swallow what was shoved in their faces.

[RiversideS13]

I understand what you guys are saying, but it is a fucking problem. A sick fucking problem at that.

I agree! it is a very disturbing problem and we should hang all of the pedophiles.

it just like substance abuse could be freedom too, but it will create problems and therefore it is not protected.

[status:one]

Supposedly a big problem that law enforcement faces with pedophiles is that they are scared to lock them up w/ the regular prisoners due to the well documented fact that pedophiles get dealt with using extreme prejudice. It seems pretty regular you hear about pedophiles getting suspended sentences (which is legalese for being let back out in the public.) Alot of lawmakers would rather innocent people be put in harms way than the criminal themselves. We need to throw these guys in prison, and if they get killed in prison, thats life..

Yes I have heard of pedophiles receiving abuse from other inmates... but there is noway a judge would lesson a sentence because of this. It is up to the guards of the prison to prevent the violence that goes on inside prisons... not the judge.

[PRADOgy]

This just makes no damn sense....

This is deffinatley gona affect my rave forums lol.. what?!! what drug and experience section? :ugh:

[SimpleSexy180]

Rioting needs to come back in style. It was cool when people stood up refusing to swallow what was shoved in their faces.


well i dont know about riots, but our government hates it when we riot. because well besides the bad part of destroying peoples hard earned businesses,cars,etc etc...it shows we will not stand by for whatever is going on and thats a no no to them. lets all just sit,moan,groan,complain on a computer screen and not do shit about anything. yeah that seems to be the way the 90's parents brought us up.

"dont steal, the government hates competition"

[S14DB]

Comes down to precedence. They pass a law that affects one group that no one likes. Then down the road they apply the same style law to others under the precedence that they already have a law like it on the books.

[OptionZero]

I haven't read all the comments above...but I did just take 1st Amendment law this past semester. Jurisprudence in this area is quite a mess, with little clear rules. I doubt anyone here is qualified to come up with an ideal solution, given that smarter people than any of us have failed to come to any consensus.

Certain categories of speech are not considered protected by the first amendment: incitement to illegal activity, true threats, obscenity, and others. Child porn falls into the "obscenity" category. Unprotected speech is subject to any regulation the government wants to slap on it (other constitutional limits apply, of course). Protected speech cannot be regulated without extreme justification (the world will end if we do not ban this, for example).

This is a tricky case. Consider activity related to child porn:

Viewing it
Owning/possessing it
Purchasing/acquire it
Distributing it
Offering to purchase/acquire it
Offering to sell/acquire it

What are you gonna criminalize? Bear in mind the dual interests of stopping child porn and not arresting innocent people.

The statute here makes pandering illegal, which is the "offering to distribute" part (the other sections deal with other activity).

Discussing this in class raised two examples:

1. Child porn distributer goes into chat room and types: here are pictars of kids in bed! No one has a problem throwing this guy in jail, right?

2. Grandma can't make Thanksgiving. Mom wants grandma to see her grandkids, so she emails grandma, saying "here are pictures of the kids in bed".

Because the statute doesn't require the material pandered to actually be proved to be pr0n, Mom in example 2 could, technically, be convicted under this statute.

On the other hand, the Court did point out how difficult it is to prove material is truly pr0n. Using a 19 yr old actor to play a 14yr old in a pornographic film is not obscene- the cops would have to prove that a minor is a minor. Now imagine the difficulty in tracking down who's in the material and whether that person is a minor- after that image has been bounced around on the internet.

Should the child pornographer be allowed to walk b/c the cops couldn't identify the potential kid, even though the porno guy was offering this all over the internet as child porn?

I dunno. That's for you to decide. You probably wouldn't blink at convicting the dude if it were your kid being used; but if you were caught in a grandma situation, you'd be pretty bummed.

The Court has to weigh the two possibilities and make a decision. Not an easy job or one to be taken lightly. I don't agree with all of their decisions, but I am equally not able to offer a better solution. For whoever said "prosecute when there's actual evidence"...well, thats not much of a solution.

People complain when tighter rules are enacted; people complain when criminals evade prosecution thanks to a loophole in a loosely written rule.

What're you gonna do.

For what it's worth, I'd suggest you read the Supreme Court's decision (link) (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-694.pdf) before jumping to any conclusions.


For those who are hysterically crying about how the first amendment is gone...please. Child porn is quite a ways away from ignoring the first amendment, it's at least a legit attempt to deal with a real problem. It's a long way off from getting busted for talking about coke, as well. The internet already has more First Amendment protection than broadcast media (TV).

[flip3d]

Screw the Supreme Court. They're all old and probably don't the internet anyway.

[ESmorz]

So for example would it be illegal for me to take pics of myself and send them around the internet?

Or no, because I'm the minor in question.

How do they even pick who to convict and why? Just based off the internet and what you type? That's what makes it kinda scary.

[OptionZero]

It's a federal statute.

FBI finds offenders.
U.S. Department of Justice prosecutes.

This particular part of the statute focuses on pandering (advertising/offering) the materials. Taking the pics and sending them would have to fall under a different section.

[ESmorz]

It's a federal statute.

FBI finds offenders.
U.S. Department of Justice prosecutes.

But since I'm a minor would I still get charged? :drool: hahaha

[S13_Nightkid]

well i dont know about riots, but our government hates it when we riot. because well besides the bad part of destroying peoples hard earned businesses,cars,etc etc...it shows we will not stand by for whatever is going on and thats a no no to them. lets all just sit,moan,groan,complain on a computer screen and not do shit about anything. yeah that seems to be the way the 90's parents brought us up.

"dont steal, the government hates competition"

phrase of the day. If our basic rights can't be upheld then i dont want to know what else could happen.

[theicecreamdan]

I don't see a problem with it.

Its illegal to try to get a hooker or for an underage person to try to buy alcohol.

Plus anybody that wants child pornography is fucked up.

[flclsteve]

So does this apply to all 50 states im sure this is a dumb question but ya

[muddafakka]

http://oculosis.com/maraby/tmp/pedobear.png

[Jung918]

this is a slippery slope

[jed240]

the problem is, this is how it all starts
"oh we made it illegal to talk about it and it worked great! now lets make talking about drugs illegal! yay we won the war on drugs, lets make talking about breaking traffic laws illegal! yay that worked! lets find something else!"

repeat untill we all move to canada or finland

not any better in canada. In canada there is a street racing law by which anyone going 50kph over is charged with street racing & on th spot their car is impounded & license suspended before trial or due process solely on the discretion of the police, also applies to wheelspin/burnout or anything at the cops discretion. if found guilty in court u r also liable to a minimum $2000 penalty. last weekend atleast 28ppl were charged with street racing. u want freedom move to iran b4 it gets bombed.

[OptionZero]

So does this apply to all 50 states im sure this is a dumb question but ya

It's a federal statute. It applies no matter where you live.

The difference between that and a state statute is that the FBI comes knocking on your door instead of your local police/sheriff.

You're pretty fucked if the feds come after you.

[OptionZero]

not any better in canada. In canada there is a street racing law by which anyone going 50kph over is charged with street racing & on th spot their car is impounded & license suspended before trial or due process solely on the discretion of the police, also applies to wheelspin/burnout or anything at the cops discretion. if found guilty in court u r also liable to a minimum $2000 penalty. last weekend atleast 28ppl were charged with street racing. u want freedom move to iran b4 it gets bombed.

How the FUCK is that the same?

[ryguy]

I can't really imagine anyone really joking about wanting to buy child pornography.

You are obviously not a /b/tard. 4chan is full of people joking about child pornorgaphy, that place is going to be a free for all for the FBI now.

http://koti.phnet.fi/jukhai/Dystopia/pedobear05.jpg

[spoolandslide]

our founding fathers didnt write those very vague words so that all the 45 year old men who are addicted to kiddieporn can get their jollies off legally and with security on the internet

[Andrew Bohan]

ok let's test it.

can i get away with a crime?


do you or anyone else here have any CHILD PORN?

[ryguy]

do you or anyone else here have any CHILD PORN?

I may or may not have CHILD PORN good sir, but I will send you CHILD PORN if I do.

Oh shit, now theyre gonna arrest me and you.


seriously, this is what the powers that be are wasting their time on?

[OptionZero]

You realize you're saying more effectively deterring child pornography is a waste of time?

There might be other, perhaps more important things for "powers" do to, but that does not mean addressing this particular problem is a "waste".

[RiversideS13]

So for example would it be illegal for me to take pics of myself and send them around the internet?

Or no, because I'm the minor in question.

How do they even pick who to convict and why? Just based off the internet and what you type? That's what makes it kinda scary.

i believe they wont able to log everyone for this matter. but let's say you took pix of your cock and you send it to a 10 years girl...... she got traumatized by your one eye monster w/ hairy sac and had nightmare. She told her mom and her mom called police on you. than you are in trouble.

[Andrew Bohan]

what if a 13 year old boy take a pic of his boner and just saves it on his computer?

is he now a producer of, and in possession of, child porn?

[OptionZero]

The statute criminalizes offers to provide or requests to obtain, neither of which includes your 13 year old boy hypothetical.

People..really...read the opinion, or at the least, read the whole article. I mean, commenting is what the forum is for, but wouldn't it all make for more worthwhile discussion to comment on something you've looked into at least a little bit?

[Andrew Bohan]

i was meaning in general


but yea

[ESmorz]

Well no one still answered my question. lol

[ryguy]

You realize you're saying more effectively deterring child pornography is a waste of time?

There might be other, perhaps more important things for "powers" do to, but that does not mean addressing this particular problem is a "waste".

I am not saying that deterring child pornography is a waste of time. I couldn't agree more that anybody who looks at that shit is a sick, sick fuck. But, with the INCREDIBLE amount of joking about this that goes on in the internet, there is no way this is at all an effective way of deterring offenders.

[OptionZero]

1) How are you qualified to say that there is "no way" this is an effective way of deterring offenders? Are you in law enforcement, do you write legislation, and have you done any research into the matter?

2) So because you say this is in effective, what do you propose the government do instead? Twiddle their thumbs?

There are far worse ways to waste government resources (like Congress' constant meddling in sports). I've yet to hear any viable alternatives or truly useful criticism; instead this thread is filled with sarcastic comments and supreme court bashing.

[BustedS13]

So for example would it be illegal for me to take pics of myself and send them around the internet?

Or no, because I'm the minor in question.

How do they even pick who to convict and why? Just based off the internet and what you type? That's what makes it kinda scary.

no, you just a assho'

they don't pay no mind
If you're under 18 you won't be doing any time
Hey-ayyy-ayyyyy, come out and play

[OptionZero]

I'm not entirely clear on how delinquints are handled in federal court, but I have a hard time envisioning the FBI using its resources on a minor unless he were an evil mastermind behind a large child porn smuggling ring.

Also, without delving into the details too far, I would wager that the intent requirement would be the likely explanation for not prosecuting someone (child or not).