Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Virtual Child Pornography
'"The sexual abuse of a child is a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the majority decision. Nevertheless, he said, if the 1996 law were allowed to stand, the Constitution's First Amendment right to free speech would be "turned upside down. Congress may pass valid laws to protect children from abuse, and it has," Justice Kennedy wrote. "The prospect of crime, however, by itself does not justify laws suppressing protected speech."'
Although it is 'old news', this decision by the SCOTUS was pivotal and condoned the RIGHT of pedophiles to proliferate the internet with virtual child porn, which everybody knows is just one step from child porn made with real children.
Per Q, Anthony Kennedy was forced out of the SCOTUS, opening the door for another TRUMP appointment. This was a YUGE Swamp Takedown.
view the rest of the comments →
rndmvar ago
Child porn is repugnant, and the CREATORS should be prosecuted.
HOWEVER, don't you find it odd that anyone who becomes overly critical of the DeepState suddenly has tens of thousands of child porn images found on their computers?
Then they are found dead in their jail cells weeks after being admitted.
Child porn legislation is the "sprinkle some crack on him" tool of the DeepState.
It uses peoples' aversion to child abuse to silence calls for investigation into whether the person targeted is really guilty of such a crime, or if they were framed by D.S. devils.
It also makes it illegal for Pizzagate investigators to hold onto certain pieces of evidence that wealthy Moloch worshipers are sacrificing children.
Thus, the actual creators of the child porn can use law enforcement resources to silence critics and investigators.
EvaEverywhere ago
Your evidence is not porn, it's not art, it's just evidence of a crime. Also, the #1 goal is to delete all material featuring children being exploited. That is a much broader category than what people think CP is. The naming of it obscures what it is: Evidence of a crime. But if you keep it on your computer it will be taken a re-distributed. So report and delete is a better strategy. It could be that your content has never been catalogued into the hash system (for quick lookup using mathematical representation of content rather than human validation). New content can feature children that are still alive and findable.
I am not specifically writing to YOU but people need to move away from the old CP language and attitude and, step-by-step, face the problem and do the right thing... but not in a way that gets undone. Mind your language: "exploitative videos of children" (that includes completely legal stuff like exploitative videos of children on social media and youtube)