Dahlia describes the law in question here -- 18 USC 48 -- as making it illegal "to create, sell, or possess "any visual or auditory depiction" of "animal cruelty" if the act of cruelty is itself illegal under either federal law or the law of the state in which the depiction occurred." However, the law goes quite a bit further than that -- it makes it a crime to show animal cruelty " if such conduct is illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place in the State". That's a MUCH more extensive (and much more obviously unconstitutional) statute.

Agreed - I found this very broad distrurbingly so.

What do you both feel about someone in the US possessing a video of 16 year olds having consensual sex (and consenting to the video, too) in a country where such conduct and film making is legal?

And what is your opinion on the "sex tourism" law that forbids sex with anyone under 18--even if the age of consent in the country visited is lower?

I'm in agreement that illegal actions engaged for the purposes of filming them should make the film itself illegal. But when the actions are legal were they occurred, the film should be legal.

Legal actions >> illegal films is effectively prosecution of thoughts, IMO. I also hold the same position regarding kiddie porn (for example) as depicted by drawings or computer effects.

StevieN: The Sex Tourism law is illegal in my view -- how can I be prosecuted for acts that occurred outside the court's juridiction?

A few years a back there was a rather naive ROTC cadet who had been to South America and then traveled to Spain. Spanish officials found cocaine in his luggage, cocaine he credibly claimed must have been planted -- he had no criminal history at all and had never used drugs, and had none in his system. He was still guilty of a crime in Spain -- but he wouldn't have been charged with a crime when he came home, simply because the crime he committed wasn't in the U.S. Something similar happened to the former congressman Charlie Wilson who was investigated for using cocaine, and it was found he'd used it -- in the Cayman Islands, outside U.S. control. As a result, he couldn't be charged. If he'd been having sex with a 15-year-old also outside of U.S. control, I can't see how that would be any different in the eyes of the law.

The law regarding these films is clearly unconstitutional. It would restrict differing points of view.

degs:

The wording should be "depicitng animal cruelty (fights, multilation, etc.) for profits." I am assuming you believe the law is to general?

I'm fairly purist in am 1. As long as it isn't subornation of a crime, its not regulable. "commercial speech" is not speech that itself makes money - "commercial speech" instead is speech that promotes a commercial objective.

So selling speech for profit does not make it commercial speech. Making commercial claims IN speech is.

Child pornography is subornation of a crime. The act of filming the child sex acts is illegal in all UN compliant nations as a consequence of the Convention on the Rights of The Child. Thus selling such video is subornation of a crime. Subornation of a crime is not covered under Am 1

Animal cruelty laws have no such universality in definition or application. Thus unless it can be shown to actually be subornation of a crime - which then has exceptions under News and Public Interest clauses - the goal of simply "shielding the eyes" of the public is not sufficient to violate Am 1.

Degs: I agree -- with the possible proviso that our current law bans even the digital depiction of child porn where the actual exploitation of children hasn't taken place. Although SCOTUS disagrees with me, I tend to think that's a law that should be held unconstitutional.

On this we agree 100%.

the evidence that child pornography itself CAUSES future abuse is at best dubious. since no crime is committed in the manipulation of digital pixels, there is no subornation of a crime and hence there should be no legal censorship as noxious and offensive as it might be.

Frankly I disagree with the SCOTUS position on obscentity as well.

the arguement then goes that society won't be able to regulate what things Children are exposed to- well it can't today. I know of few 7yos that have not had access to some porn stash despite the explicit illegality of it.

but that presumes that corporations have a right of free speech. they ought not. They ought have the right to legally contract and nothing else.

Degsme and I are in perfect agreement. What is this world coming to?

Do not resist... you will be assimilated :-)

degsme:

Child pornography is subornation of a crime. The act of filming the child sex acts is illegal in all UN compliant nations as a consequence of the Convention on the Rights of The Child. Thus selling such video is subornation of a crime. Subornation of a crime is not covered under Am 1

Then you believe that underage people who do "sexting" should be charged with child pornography?

Possibly.

Mens rea baby mens rea. everyone owns their own image. but passing on sexually explicit images that you don't have a release for is a crime - and since a minor cannot engage in a legal contract and hence cannot validly GIVE you a release means that passing on an image of your boyfriend or girlfriend is a crime.

Degs: I agree to a point -- but when both sender and sendee are juveniles, do we need the law to step in? Who is exploiting whom?

Where we split, of course, is in the "corporations shouldn't have the right to free speech," thing. I understand your legal reasoning, but I don't think it is right -- free speech is too important to restrict it just because it comes from a group rather than an individual.

A group can speak POLITICALLY as coordinated individuals. That's how democratic representation is supposed to work.

But the group itself has no existance in the Constitution as having aggregate protected speech. And the power that granting personhood rights to corporations that gets ceded is stunning. Remember unlike a born citizen a corporation:

• Never sleeps
• cannot be killed (even if it goes bankrupt it can be ressurrected)
• cannot really face criminal liability (it can't go to jail )
• is wealthier than any individual (BillG is worth $58B, which doesn't even put him in the top 20 largest US companies and outside the top 50 WW. China Shenhua Energy has more capital)
• has no conscience
• has no morals beyond those imposed by law
• has better bankruptcy protections
• can "vote" in any jurisdiction it has officers in

And how is this not destabilizing to democracy? Even if it is "representing a group" - essentially it is giving the members of that group "two voices" rather than one. That's not proportional representation.