Court asks if porn law covers mainstream films

[gonzo]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Several U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed doubt on Tuesday that a law barring child pornography could be applied to popular award-winning movies like "Lolita," "Traffic," American Beauty" and "Titanic."

The justices appeared to support the pandering provision of a 2003 federal law that makes it a crime to promote, distribute or solicit material in a way intended to cause others to believe it contains child pornography.

They were hearing arguments in a case brought by the Bush administration urging them to uphold the law, after a U.S. appeals court struck down that provision on the grounds the government cannot suppress lawful free speech.
Bush administration lawyer Paul Clement argued that the law does not illegally infringe on free-speech or other rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
He said the law does not inhibit legitimate creative expression, and drew a distinction between mainstream movies and illegal child pornography.

"If you're taking a movie like 'Traffic' or 'American Beauty', which is not child pornography, and you're simply truthfully promoting it, you have nothing to worry about with this statute," Clement told the justices.

"Traffic" has a scene with the high-school daughter of the nation's drug czar appearing to have sex with a drug dealer; "Lolita" portrayed a middle-aged man's obsession with a young girl; "Titanic" depicted a love affair by a young couple on a doomed ship; and "American Beauty" involved a 42-year-old man's attraction to his daughter's best friend.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked the attorney who is challenging the law about the government's distinction between legitimate films and illegal child pornography.

More on this!

[seochick]

good thing, there's such thing as a cyber crime in your country or a law for pornography. here in our country, there's no specific law for cyber crime

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by seochick

good thing, there's such thing as a cyber crime in your country or a law for pornography. here in our country, there's no specific law for cyber crime

Huh?

What country are you in? That sure as hell made no sense. Tell me how are you are SEO specialist if you have no comprehension of english?

[spazlabz]

Some of us in adult have been screaming for years that 2257 needed to be applied to Hollywood films... it's nice to see a court asking the question.


spaz

[KevinG]

This makes sense going along with the Supreme Court's 2002 decision striking down the CPPA act because it banned virtual CP.

Basically they said fake cp is just that, fake ... so how can it be illegal?

Like, I can't be found guilty of selling pot if it's really oregano.

[Hammer]

ummm... Titanic?

The actors that played the parts were in their twenties and it's been a while since I saw the movie, but at what point did they indicate that the lovers in question were under 18? I also vaguely remember a scene where he was drawing her picture while she laid nude on a couch but I'll be damned if I can remember the scene where Leonardo actually banged the chick.

You know, the whole idea of holding Hollywood accountable to this idiotic child porn obsession the government has is ridiculous and even more ridiculous than claiming that 2257 will protect children in any way, but now we're rooting for the bad guys when they go after Hollywood? WTF?

C'mon Spaz, really.

[spazlabz]

Originally Posted by Hammer

ummm... Titanic?

The actors that played the parts were in their twenties and it's been a while since I saw the movie, but at what point did they indicate that the lovers in question were under 18? I also vaguely remember a scene where he was drawing her picture while she laid nude on a couch but I'll be damned if I can remember the scene where Leonardo actually banged the chick.

You know, the whole idea of holding Hollywood accountable to this idiotic child porn obsession the government has is ridiculous and even more ridiculous than claiming that 2257 will protect children in any way, but now we're rooting for the bad guys when they go after Hollywood? WTF?

C'mon Spaz, really.

I am not rooting for the bad guys for going after Hollywood, I WANT them to place the same restrictions for sexually explicit content to, follow the exact same regulations we do. Once the mainstream gets a taste of the craziness involved it may see the light of day as the stupidity it is... LOTS of press that will work in our favor


spaz

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Hammer

ummm... Titanic?

The actors that played the parts were in their twenties and it's been a while since I saw the movie, but at what point did they indicate that the lovers in question were under 18? I also vaguely remember a scene where he was drawing her picture while she laid nude on a couch but I'll be damned if I can remember the scene where Leonardo actually banged the chick.

You know, the whole idea of holding Hollywood accountable to this idiotic child porn obsession the government has is ridiculous and even more ridiculous than claiming that 2257 will protect children in any way, but now we're rooting for the bad guys when they go after Hollywood? WTF?

C'mon Spaz, really.

I wouldn't want to be mis-understood either.....but if you look deeply into the law, it would apply to that scene in the car on Titanic, as they "Implied" the act. And of course, her nipples were in a "turgid" state.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner......5 years in jail for you, sir.

[helix]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

I wouldn't want to be mis-understood either.....but if you look deeply into the law, it would apply to that scene in the car on Titanic, as they "Implied" the act. And of course, her nipples were in a "turgid" state.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner......5 years in jail for you, sir.

Bonus points for you because you used the word "turgid" in a sentence.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by helix

Bonus points for you because you used the word "turgid" in a sentence.

Hey, I'm a PROfessional writer you know.
I'z gots all kinds o' big worders.