Can't censor speech because it's distasteful

Nearly everyone would agree that child pornography is a disgusting and depraved sexual perversion. But when the Supreme Court ruled in April that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) was unconstitutionally vague, this was not the issue before the justices.

The question raised was not one of the appropriateness of the subject material, but whether that material was unduly censored and restricted in clear contradiction with First Amendment rights. In this case, the highest court in the United States of America ruled that it was.

The point of contention was that the CPPA not only criminalized pornography involving children, but also made punishable "any visual depiction that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and any sexually explicit image that is advertised, promoted, presented, described or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

With this broad definition, any sexually explicit picture of an adult dressed as a minor would be illegal. Were this carried out to the letter of the law, many popular teen movies would be subject to prosecution, as they depict supposed minors engaging in sexual activity.

Another target that doesn't involve actual children is that of digital enhancement. Pictures or materials that have been digitally edited to resemble children do not involve genuine children, and thus punishing the creators is an unreasonable censure. Under another Supreme Court decision, Miller v. California, pornography can only be censured if it is deemed to be obscene. In this definition, obscenity comprises works of sexual nature that are generally offensive and have no artistic value.

Put another way, "The Birth of Venus" is not obscene. Pictures of adults, no matter how attired, having consensual sex are not obscene. Materials depicting actual pedophilic acts, a universally offensive topic, are obscene. Thus, while such virtual child pornography may represent distasteful ideas, it is not obscene and therefore cannot be censured.

The ultimate point of our judicial system is to adhere to the spirit of the Constitution. The freedom of speech cannot be molded to fit any one person's dislikes or else it would be compromised. Because of this, the Supreme Court considered the law, considered social mores and came up with the right decision.

Copyright 2002 Cowles Publishing Company
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.