Yahkee "Doodle" could go to Jail
Imagine you haven't broken any laws. You're not listed as a child molester.
Your simply at home and draw a picture of two kids having sex. A new law want to put you in jail for it. This forces one to ask, "What is a thought crime"and is there a double standard in the law when it comes to adults who are sexually aroused by children?
You'd think that what a person draws in their own home, for their own use, would be something beyond the reach of the government. This, however, may not be the case. Proposed legislation would, "prohibits all obscene pornographic images of prepubescent children, including drawings, cartoons, paintings and sculptures."
Lord forbid your child should draw a fantasy picture of their having sex with another child. They might be labeled as a sex criminal for life. While it's not against the law to be adult sexually attracted to children this new "proposed" law would come close to making it so.
If nothing else it brings up the question, "What is a thought crime?"
This purposed legislation follows the landmark 1995 "U.S v. Stephen Knox" decision in which a " known pedophile was sentenced to jail for possessing tapes of young girls in leotards whose dancing the court qualified as "lascivious." The article states the following:
"However, proving lascivious intent in court is extremely difficult. The prosecutor would have to demonstrate that the producer of the material intended to elicit a sexual response with the images or that the subscriber viewed the images for sexual arousal.
Unless the images are in a folder called something like, "hot little kids I'd like to have sex with," it would be hard for prosecutors to argue that the subscriber had lewd interest in the material.
The material could also prove damaging in cases where a defendant has previous convictions for child pornography or molestation, he added. In the 1995 landmark case, U.S v Stephen Know, a known pedophile was sentenced to jail for possessing tapes of young girls in leotards whose dancing the court qualified as "lascivious."
What's terrible about the U.S v. Stephen Knox case is that pedophiles are know to have a sexual interest in children. Consequently, two people might posses the same picture of a child. However, based soley on the sexual orientation of the pedophile he might go to jail for possessing the picture because it could be argued he viewed it for sexual arousal. Stephen Knox Case:
As the article, "House Refines Virtual Porn Ban," by Julia Scheeres says: http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,53510,00.html?tw=wn_ascii
"The House approved the "Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002" (COPPA) Tuesday, 413-8, barely two months after the Supreme Court struck down a similar measure seeking to prohibit computer images of people under 18 engaged in sex."
What's frightening about this newly proposed legislation (COOPA) is that the act is not aimed at pornographic pictures of real children engaging in sex. The act would not only ban computer images that are indistinguishable" from real child images and which the U.S Supreme Court ruled legal. The proposed legislation would "also prohibits all obscene pornographic images of prepubescent children, including drawings, cartoons, paintings and sculptures."
As you might guess much of the leadership for this legislation comes from John Ashcroft and his right wing cronies.
"Katz and others say the legislation goes too far. COPPA would make it illegal, for example, for people to draw doodles of young kids engaging in homosexual acts, even if they are doing so in the privacy of their own home and the doodles are based solely on their own depraved mental imagery."
While the U.S Supreme Court will probably find the proposed legislation also illegal it is not comforting to know that people like John Ashcroft, and his god fearing contingency want to put people in jail for what they drew in the privacy of their homes.
To get more of an understanding of this issue I suggest the following articles:
"Round Two on 'Morphed' Child Porn," By Declean McCollagh
"Justices Preserve Dirty Thoughts," By Declean McCollagh
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article