Cassandra Kimberly, Charger Staff
Imagine you are sitting at your computer surfing the net when you are bombarded
with advertisments from companies wanting you to buy “the latest, greatest
product.” Most of the annoying sites are deleted when suddenly you come
across something so revolting it makes your stomach churn. This particular ad
happens to be a promotion for “virtual” child pornography.
On April 16, 2002, The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was expanded
and upheld to not only include the banning of pornographic images made using
real children, but also any visual image of a “child” (i.e. computer
images and youthful looking adults) engaging in sexual activities. This law
prevented any possession and distribution of virtual child pornography that
appears to, but does not, illustrate real children. Now the United States Supreme
Court claims that the new law is unconstitutional and violates the First Ammendment
rights of perverts everywhere.
Voting 6-3 in favor of the Free Speech Coalitoin, the “majority”
in this case, the legal voters are protected. The question now is, “who
is protecting the children?”
According to the Constitution, Congress cannot make laws preventing the freedom
of speech. The Free Speech Coalition claimed that the Child Pornography Prevention
Act of 1996 restricted the rights of American citizens to engage in perversions
involving images of those too young to fully understand the concept of sex.
To back this claim, some argued that this act also violated the rights of artists
to create works that are not viewed as corrupt by the general public. On the
contrary, this act simply made it more complicated for child molesters and abductors
to commit such heinous crimes. Now that restrictions are limited, pedophiles
have access to the sources of their problems whetting the appetites and feeding
their sickness. It is true that a revision is in order to allow artistic contributions
to society but even that should be restricted. America has built itself around
sex appeal and blatant seduction. In magazines, movies, and even commercials,
erotic suggestions promote products giving a sense of false acceptance. When
will we learn that lust cannot replace what morals society is lacking?
Legalization of child porn imagery not only degrades the public as a whole, but it also denotes children for the rest of their being. These pictures will haunt those whom did not know any better in their personal and professional lives in the future. I can only pray that someone will be able to rise against these horrid arrangements and better the future so that minors may feel safe in the land that is supposed to grant rights, not privileges, to those who not only vote but also future leaders of The United States.
Home | Archives | More Sept. 02 articles
Article prepared for web by J. Wheeler 6-Sept-2002