Former SCOTUS Justice Anthony Kennedy Called Virtual Child Porn 'Free Speech' (pizzagate)

submitted ago by Oh_Well_ian

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.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

notanexit ago

If they banned virtual child porn, could they use that as precedence to ban virtual murders?

MaxVieuxlieu ago

Violent video games are currently protected under this same precedent as free speech. If this case had gone the other way, the next challenge would have probably involved the original first-person shooters in some place that tried to ban them. Whether the Court would have extended the holding in this case to a violent video game is a different question, but it follows the same line of reasoning.

Oh_Well_ian ago

lol yeah... because child sex acts and first shooter games are exactly the same

Your comments on this thread are very suspect, buddy.

MaxVieuxlieu ago

Do you doubt that the next logical challenge after virtual child porn, if successful, would have been violent video games, especially given their place in popular culture at the time of this decision? Nobody ever said they were the same, and the only comment I made in the entire thread was the one you responded to directly, my only other contribution to the thread was a direct question, to you, that remains unanswered.

Oh_Well_ian ago

Yes... I absolutely doubt that. Where is the correlation between the two?

MaxVieuxlieu ago

  1. People ban virtual child porn because they claim it's linked to consumption of real child porn.

  2. Court upholds ban.

  3. People somewhere ban violent video games because they claim it's linked to committing real acts of violence.

Instead, the Court reversed the ban in 1, and therefore there was no step 3. What's so hard to imagine?

Oh_Well_ian ago

100% hypothetical nonsense

MaxVieuxlieu ago

Right, the fact that there are already bans on the sale of certain video games to minors and the fact that outright bans have been propagated elsewhere makes this completely hypothetical. Or maybe you don't know what words mean...

https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-violent-video-games-be-banned

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/03/08/trump-talk-video-game-makers-critics-thursday-white-house-meeting/406374002/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201011/playing-violent-video-games-good-or-bad

Oh_Well_ian ago

you're advocating child porn and justifying merely because it's 'virtual'

connecting it to a slippery slope argument about violent video games is dubious

MaxVieuxlieu ago

When have I ever advocated for child porn? You appear to be deliberately lying about my position in order to bolster you're own weak position. If this is the case then you are despicable. If it's not the case then you should rescind your previous comment.

Actual child porn creates actual harm to children. Virtual child porn creates virtual harm to children. A ban on one is clearly consistent with principles of first amendment freedom of expression. A ban on another is not as clearly so. Your use of punctuation and capitalization suggest an inability to appreciate the nuance between the two. You're probably a heavy child porn user who wants to virtue-signal about how bad it is in preparation for the day you're actually caught. I suggest you get help for your problems.

Oh_Well_ian ago

Did you even realize those profiting from virtual child porn are the same people profiting off actual child porn?

Or do you want to continue this charade that you're some sort of expert?

Why don't I see any submissions to v/pizzagate from you but you're in here concern trolling and defending a Deep State shitbag like Anthony Kennedy?

YogSoggoth ago

Good argument, but legally, and almost lawfully Max is right. I hate destructo video games, and all video games. If you let them make a law like that it will give them leverage for attacking you. They are making software right now to imitate real video. Would you want to have your identity stolen and given to these people? What if they made a bad video of you, and sent it to you? After the law to protect children of course, you, assuming innocence, would be on trial for more than one offence to the initial crime. Example is hate crime. Digital Avatars and the Future of Fake News from Wired, owned by the fashion magnate I know.

carmencita ago

Amen.