Why does RP protect child predators?

[TrueConservative]

The biggest problem with RP is his willingness to protect child predators/molesters. He voted against enhancing the Amber Alert, he voted against outlawing computer generated child porn, and voted against another bill that would have helped the feds track down child predators. Is he hiding something?:confused:

[Gabecpa]

The biggest problem with RP is his willingness to protect child predators/molesters. He voted against enhancing the Amber Alert, he voted against outlawing computer generated child porn, and voted against another bill that would have helped the feds track down child predators. Is he hiding something?:confused:

It's not about the children or the predators. He votes based on upholding the constitution. He must have interpreted the Constitution to leave that issue up to the states.

[qednick]

The biggest problem with RP is his willingness to protect child predators/molesters. He voted against enhancing the Amber Alert, he voted against outlawing computer generated child porn, and voted against another bill that would have helped the feds track down child predators. Is he hiding something?:confused:

It must be break time at the IRS. :eek:

[TrueConservative]

Way to avoid the subject qednick.

Why can I not get a straight answer on where in the Constitution does it give people the right to any form of child pornography? Think about it - who looks at child porn? Child predators who are a danger to children perhaps?

[Korey Kaczynski]

It must be break time at the IRS. :eek:

:D

.

[JoshLowry]

Why would I get censored for speaking the truth? Isn't that hypocritical, as you RP supports are whinning about someone not wanting RP to be in the debates. So, you won't to remove me from the debates on here?


Dr No is an idiot, and it is apparent every time he opens his mouth.

That's not what someone posts when they are looking for a debate.

[Gabecpa]

Way to avoid the subject qednick.

Why can I not get a straight answer on where in the Constitution does it give people the right to any form of child pornography? Think about it - who looks at child porn? Child predators who are a danger to children perhaps?

It doesn't specifically give that right in the Constitution.

It falls under the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.

[zMtLlC]

Way to avoid the subject qednick.

Why can I not get a straight answer on where in the Constitution does it give people the right to any form of child pornography? Think about it - who looks at child porn? Child predators who are a danger to children perhaps?

It's not an issue of child predators. It's an issue of the Constitution, which doesn't give the Federal government the right to pass such laws. Remember, state governments have police forces, etc., to monitor this sort of thing. They should be the ones to pass such laws. The Federal government shouldn't and doesn't have the authority to do such things.

[giskard]

Where in the constitution does it say that the Federal Gov't should spend money catching child molesters? Have you looked up the expansion of the Amber alert that RP voted against?

In many bills there is often a hidden agenda, which can be good reasons to vote it down. This may be the case here, I don't know.

One example is Codex Alimentus, ostensibly to homogenize quality of drugs around the world. The hidden agenda is that the FDA will now have full control over health supplements it previously didn't have control over. For example, selling Vitamin C of more than 200 mg will be illegal. And that you need a prescription to take Glucosamine or MSM supplements for your joints. Look it up.

Lastly there are some things where IMO it makes sense for the Federal Gov't to control spending on, such as maybe the interstate freeway system. Other things, it doesn't, if only simply because the federal gov't tends to be very bureaucratic and inefficient, and that the administration of such is better handled by smaller agencies or by the States.

Concluding that RP "protects child predators" because he voted down the Amber alert expansion, is a logical error, worthy of Fox News spin artists.

Americans need to learn what is known as "critical thinking".

[TrueConservative]

zMtLlC - in that case, it is unconstitutional for their to be a federal law against rape, murder, etc..?

[lbadragan]

A journalist should ask him. I'm sure he'll give a very good reason. Such as "the founding fathers didn't take this kind of crime into consideration when they wrote the constitution and the constitution doesn't forbit it. So passing a law would be unconstitutional. But I would support a constitutional amendment to say that making child porn is a crime."

Good challenge. I really do hope a journalist asks him so more of Ron Paul's wisdom and principles will be on display for the world to see.

[JoshLowry]

TC you got your "debate" thread.

Asking the same question in other peoples thread will not be permitted.

[cujothekitten]

zMtLlC - in that case, it is unconstitutional for their to be a federal law against rape, murder, etc..?

Wrong, those all violate the right to life, liberty and property as stated in the constitution. It is illegal to make child porn; it is unconstitutional to install the amber alert system.

[jon_perez]

The biggest problem with RP is his willingness to protect child predators/molesters. He voted against enhancing the Amber Alert, he voted against outlawing computer generated child porn, and voted against another bill that would have helped the feds track down child predators. Is he hiding something?:confused:I guess the choice is simple:

"Protect liberties"
"Protect privacy"

vs.

"Protecting child predators"
"Protect terrorists"


You can choose which set of rhetoric you want to see pushed through. Can't have both...

Although I'm sure Clinton could convince you that you can have both. That guy is one silver-tongued politician!!

[zMtLlC]

zMtLlC - in that case, it is unconstitutional for their to be a federal law against rape, murder, etc..?

As far as I can see, yes. Congress is not given the right to make such laws in Article 1, Section 8. I believe the original intent was to let the States do such things.

[Gabecpa]

zMtLlC - in that case, it is unconstitutional for their to be a federal law against rape, murder, etc..?

Ninth amendment:


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I suggest reading the Constitution.....

[Jeff556]

Trueconservative: Ron Paul voted no on these issues because he believed the state governments and police forces would be more effective in solving these problems then the federal government.

[augustwest]

TC, I'm curious where you got the interpretation that because he hasn't voted for things he believes unconstitutional, that he wants to protect child molesters.

As far as Federal Laws against rape and murder go, in my opinion, if you read through the Constitution many of them cannot be justified. Such crimes should be prosecuted under state laws. That Dr. Paul wants most crimes to be prosecuted and punished at the state level, as our founders intended, makes him neither soft on crime, nor a friend to pedophiles in any way.

Again, please let us know who suggested to you that he is...

[swatmc]

Trueconservative,

You're reaching my man.

What else do you got to try and discredit Ron Paul?

You're gonna have to try harder.

-Mike C

[mdh]

TrueConservative - You, Sir, are an idiot. And I really rarely just outright call someone thusly. Making brash statements like "He protects child predators" is truly worthy, though. Come back when you've read the entirety of the legislative bills which you call his votes into question on. You'll realize that there's a lot more there than anything with regards to child predators, or criminals at all.

With regards to the "computer generated child porn", this is just retardation. Computer generated child porn isn't. There's no such thing. For something to be child pornography, there must be a... errr... child involved. This is akin to banning video games which involve killing "computer generated people". Computer generated people don't have any rights, lol.

Anyways, yeah. The bridge called, they want their troll back.

[Korey Kaczynski]

Trolls.

[Gabecpa]

Trolls.

That means the board has made it. Where's the party hats?

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Same reason we don't have federal murder laws, and why we shouldn't have federal abortion laws (or federal drug laws). Nor do we have federal car-jacking laws, or federal jaywalking laws, or federal rape laws.

You might as well as the Rotary why they don't pass a law against child predators. It's not what they do.

[beermotor]

Way to avoid the subject qednick.

Why can I not get a straight answer on where in the Constitution does it give people the right to any form of child pornography? Think about it - who looks at child porn? Child predators who are a danger to children perhaps?


the problem is in your "solution"... government bureaucracy/control of the Internet is not going to stop child predators.

Criminal penalties should be tougher - you do not need bureaucratic controls over information to effectuate that policy decision.

[Gabecpa]

You might as well as the Rotary why they don't pass a law against child predators. It's not what they do.


I just sent an email to my local Kiwanas club:p

[Melchior]

The biggest problem with RP is his willingness to protect child predators/molesters. He voted against enhancing the Amber Alert, he voted against outlawing computer generated child porn, and voted against another bill that would have helped the feds track down child predators. Is he hiding something?:confused:

In addition to what others here said about states rights and what the constitution authorizes, you also have to understand the nature of these laws as well.

Often laws that have good intentions tend to be unnecessary and overkill, or affect people that it shouldn't. For instance; tracking down animated pornography, which by the way doesn't hurt anyone and isn't real in the first place, is going a little too far in my opinion.

It's one thing to feel passionate about tracking down criminals and rapists, it's another to let that passion override wise policy making. I don't know the details of what he voted against, but maybe that legislation is similar to the kind they pass to track terrorists, that end up violating the rights and privacy of non-terrorists.

Think about it before you start a topic with a title like this.

[Bryan]

You might as well as the Rotary why they don't pass a law against child predators. It's not what they do.
That's a gem, I've got to remember it.

[garywatson]

Way to avoid the subject qednick.

Why can I not get a straight answer on where in the Constitution does it give people the right to any form of child pornography? Think about it - who looks at child porn? Child predators who are a danger to children perhaps?

It's a common misconception -- Ron Paul is a FEDERAL official. The vast majority of routine criminal matters are dealt with by State laws and courts. I forget the exact number but it's well over 90% of prosecutions. The number ought to be 100% minus a few traitors and sea pirates, by the design of our Constitution. The bulk of Federal prosecutions have to do with things that cross state lines, such as kidnapping or drug smuggling, or things which violate Federally regulated institutions such as bank robberies.

Over the years the Feds have unwisely expanded their law enforcement responsibilities, mostly for political show rather than anything meaningful. It is against this growth of Federal power that Ron Paul is opposed to.

If Ron Paul were a State govenor or legislator, no doubt he would work to uphold the State's constitution, which makes prosecution of crimes their responsibility. I've read much of his published writings, and there is nary a hint that he has a problem with outlawing child pornography or any other kind of child abuse. It's just that this is something the States are supposed to do, and in fact, they do a pretty good job of it considering the technical challenges involved.

[ARealConservative]

A True Conservative would understand the constitution and the idealogy behind it.

you have been exposed.

A real conservative understands that if restrictions on liberty are required, it is always best to do it at a lower form of government.

You obviously like one giant government umbrella to protect us all. Personally, I have found that the one-size fits-all solution stinks and I don't fit comfortably in your pre-pubescent underwear. :D

[Gabecpa]

A True Conservative would understand the constitution and the idealogy behind it.

you have been exposed.

A real conservative understands that if restrictions on liberty are required, it is always best to do it at a lower form of government.

You obviously like one giant government umbrella to protect us all. Personally, I have found that the one-size fits-all solution stinks and I don't fit comfortably in your pre-pubescent underwear. :D

Are you trying to say an old man in Washington DC doesn't know what is best for a child in Idaho?

Blasphemy!

[4Horsemen]

The biggest problem with RP is his willingness to protect child predators/molesters. He voted against enhancing the Amber Alert, he voted against outlawing computer generated child porn, and voted against another bill that would have helped the feds track down child predators. Is he hiding something?:confused:

If child predators are on the internet, doesn't that make it easier for law enforcement to identify them, set them up, and bust them? Think about it, you can pose as a child on the internet, but can you do it at a park? I think it makes it easier to monitor them myself. Child porn isn't legal in the first place, so how can he be protecting them? They are exposing themselves to the public, not to smart. I wish more criminals would expose their illegal activities on the net.

[Brandybuck]

Why can I not get a straight answer on where in the Constitution does it give people the right to any form of child pornography?
You have the question wrong. Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to regulate the internet?

But that question may be too hard for you, so I'll ask a simpler one: Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to outlaw murder? Think before you reply...The answer is that it doesn't! Murder is, along with the overwhelming bulk of crimes, not under the purview of the Federal government. This is a states issue.

Ron Paul voted against these bills because they are unconstitutional. They exceed the authority granted to the US government. That doesn't mean the Feds should do nothing. There is a lot they can do, but they need to do it legitimately and within the boundaries of the Constitution.

[ButchHowdy]

RP addressed this very issue at the 1st debate. Right after he was asked if he trusted the media he said "Some of them but I trust the internet more . . . " then he made a statement about even though there's some bad stuff there.

I'll listen again and try to clean up my post

[tnvoter]

the Amber Alert:

watch V for Vendetta, notice the way the government uses an announcement system to help control it's public. it's a step for the government, that can be abused with the wrong person in power. same for RP's view on giving Bush power to send our military to war, and the patriot act, all it takes, is the wrong person to get into power, another 9/11, and our liberty could be destroyed in one swift move.

[MediaTruthNetwork]

When you see Ron Paul vote against a bill you need to be sure you look at the
whole bill because often there's padded items and hidden agendas within.

Congress does that kind of crap all the time... they deliberately mislabel bills, pad
them with other non related issues and all kinds of sneaky tricks to get their agenda
passed through.

Its really sad...

- Dave

[commonsense]

trueconservative,
Here is a quote from a CNET.com article from July, 2002 on this issue. As far as virtual child porn goes, it seems he didn't see fake images of children as something actually causing violence towards children, and so one must go in favor of protecting 1st Amendment freedom. I don't think he is "hiding anything" or approves of any child pornography. Rather, he firmly believes if one is going to vote to restrict a constitutional freedom, the government needs a compelling reason (i.e. stopping actual violence to children) to do so. Anyway, his own words can explain his position better than I can:


On Tuesday, Paul became the sole Republican to oppose the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act. The measure, which has garnered the enthusiastic support of the White House and congressional leaders, restricts computer-generated images of nude minors that are "indistinguishable" from the real thing. (Congress is responding to a recent Supreme Court decision that slapped down a similar 1996 law, ruling it ran afoul of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.)
"I thought it was weak in that this was not dealing with the issue of violence toward kids," Paul said of the new bill. "It was virtual porn, a bit of a stretch. If you're going to protect children--which we should do--it should be done at the most local level possible."


I hope this helps clear up his position...

[Anti Federalist]

Random ancient thread bump, just because.

[specsaregood]

Random ancient thread bump, just because.

Well if we are gonna bump ancient threads then we might as well put in a good response.

One of the VERY GOOD reasons for Dr. Paul to have voted against the Amber Alert bill is that the same bill contained the RAVE act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_Americans%27_Vulnerability_to_Ecstasy_Act

An act which somebody such as Dr. Paul would have easily and correctly predicted was not only a violation of private property rights but would lead to horrendous abuse.

[otherone]

I'll bite:


On Tuesday, Paul became the sole Republican to oppose the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act. The measure, which has garnered the enthusiastic support of the White House and congressional leaders, restricts computer-generated images of nude minors that are "indistinguishable" from the real thing.

"All your pixels belong to us".
The Thought Police are more concerned with some perv being aroused than protecting actual children. Or more likely, they can frame adversaries without involving kids.

[Origanalist]

I'll bite:



"All your pixels belong to us".
The Thought Police are more concerned with some perv being aroused than protecting actual children. Or more likely, they can frame adversaries without involving kids.

Why do you hate innocent children?

[CPUd]

http://i.imgur.com/4gyZbvy.png

[amy31416]

The gov't wants to protect children because they'll need them for cannon fodder when they're 18.

[mosquitobite]

They have to pretend like they care about the children because I'd bet many of them have guilty complexes for what they do to children.

[Suzanimal]

The gov't wants to protect children because they'll need them for cannon fodder when they're 18.

And taxpayers.


They have to pretend like they care about the children because I'd bet many of them have guilty complexes for what they do to children.

I doubt they give a shit.

[otherone]

Why do you hate innocent children?

innocent?

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2012/10/25/1226503/031256-evil-baby-glare-off.jpg

[Brett85]

Almost all matters of crime are a state issue under the Constitution.

[presence]

HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 19, 2003


* Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to punish severely those who sexually abuse children. In fact, it is hard to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one who preys on children. Therefore, I certainly support those parts of H.R. 1104 which enhance the punishment for those convicted of federal crimes involving sexual assaults on children.

* I also support the provisions increasing the post-incarceration supervision of sex offenders. However, given the likelihood that a sex
offender will attempt to commit another sex crime, it is reasonable to ask why rapists and child molesters are not simply imprisoned for life?

* However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats instead of community-based law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique circumstances.

Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.

* Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1104 also exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority by criminalizing travel with the intent of committing a crime. As appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers few solutions. First among these problems is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country–not the U.S. Congress–to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-US citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government.

* Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it a Federal crime to “travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.” I do not think this is a practical approach to the problem. It seems that this bill actually seeks to probe the conscience of anyone who seeks to travel abroad to make sure they do not have illegal or immoral intentions. Is it possible or even advisable to make thoughts and intentions illegal? And how is this to be carried out? Should Federal agents be assigned to each travel agency to probe potential travelers as to the intent of their travel?

* At a time when Federal resources are stretched to the limit, American troops are preparing for imminent military conflict, and when we are not even able to keep known terrorists out of our own country, this bill would require Federal agents to not only track Americans as they vacation abroad, but would also require that they be able to divine the intentions of these individuals who seek to travel abroad. Talk about a tall order! As well-intentioned as I am sure this legislation is, I do not believe that it is a practical or well-thought-out approach to what I agree is a serious and disturbing problem. Perhaps a better approach would be to share with those interested countries our own laws and approaches to prosecuting those who commit these kinds of crimes, so as to see more effective capture and punishment of these criminals in the countries where the crime is committed.

* In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 1104 has some good provisions aimed at enhancing the penalties of those who commit the most heinous of crimes, it also weakens the effective AMBER Alert program by nationalizing it. H.R. 542 also raises serious civil liberties and national sovereignty concerns by criminalizing intent and treating violations of criminal law occurring in other countries’ jurisdictions as violations of American criminal law.

reference: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2003_record&page=E529&position=all
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2003_record&page=E530&position=all




http://chip91.wordpress.com/families-children/

[presence]

The statute at issue Before 1996, Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) defined child pornography with reference to the Ferber standard. In passing the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography_Prevention_Act_of_1996), Congress added the two categories of speech challenged in this case to its definition of child pornography. The first prohibited "any visual depiction, including any photograph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photograph), film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film), video (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video), picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picture), or computer or computer-generated image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_image) or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_%28law%29) engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The Court observed that this provision "captures a range of depictions, sometimes called 'virtual child pornography,' which include computer-generated images, as well as images produced by more traditional means." The second prohibited "any sexually explicit image that was advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression it depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
The lawsuit The Free Speech Coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Coalition), fearing that Congress's expanded definition of child pornography would endanger their legitimate activities, filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin enforcement of the CPPA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_Dist rict_of_California). They alleged that the first provision, prohibiting images that "appear to be" children engaged in sexual activity, and the second, prohibiting speech that "conveys the impression" that the images depict minors engaged in sexual activity, were overbroad, vague, and had a chilling effect on their legitimate work. The district court disagreed, adding that the overbreadth claim was specious as it was "highly unlikely" that any "adaptations of sexual works like Romeo and Juliet... will be treated as 'criminal contraband.'"
The Ninth Circuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Circuit) reversed, reasoning that the government could not prohibit speech merely because of its tendency to persuade its viewers to engage in illegal activity. It ruled that the CPPA was substantially overbroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overbreadth) because it prohibited material that was neither obscene nor produced by exploiting real children, as Ferber prohibited. The court declined to reconsider the case en banc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_banc). The government asked the Supreme Court to review the case, and it agreed, noting that the Ninth Circuit's decision conflicted with the decisions of four other circuit courts of appeals. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit.
Majority opinion "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech," and imposing a criminal sanction on protected speech is a "stark example of speech suppression." At the same time, sexual abuse of children "is a most serious crime and an act repugnant to the moral instincts of a decent people." "Congress may pass valid laws to protect children from abuse, and it has." The great difficulty with the two provisions of the CPPA at issue in this case was that they included categories of speech other than obscenity and child pornography, and thus were overbroad.
The Court concluded that the "CPPA prohibits speech despite its serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." In particular, it prohibits the visual depiction of teenagers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenagers) engaged in sexual activity, a "fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages." Such depictions include performances of Romeo and Juliet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_and_Juliet), by William Shakespeare; the 1996 film William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare%27s_Romeo_%2B_Juliet), directed by Baz Luhrmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baz_Luhrmann); and the Academy Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award) winning movies Traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_%282000_film%29) and American Beauty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Beauty_%281999_film%29). "If these films, or hundreds of others of lesser note that explore those subjects, contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, the possessor of the film would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the work's redeeming value. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: The artistic merit of a work does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene."
Thus, the CPPA prohibited speech for a different reason than anti-child pornography laws. Laws prohibiting the distribution and possession of child pornography ban speech because of the manner in which it is produced, regardless of its serious literary or artistic value. But speech prohibited by the CPPA "records no crime and creates no victims by its production." Child pornography is not necessarily without value, but it is illegal because of the harm that making and distributing it necessarily inflicts upon children. Ferber expressly allowed virtual child pornography as an alternative that could preserve whatever literary value child pornography might arguably have while at the same time mitigating the harm caused by making it. The CPPA would eliminate this distinction and punish people for engaging in what had heretofore been a legal alternative.
The Government countered that without the CPPA, child molesters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_molesters) might use virtual child pornography to seduce children. But "there are many things innocent in themselves, however, such as toys, movies, games, video games, candy, money etc. that might be used for immoral purposes, yet we would not expect those to be prohibited because they can be misused." The First Amendment draws a distinction between words and deeds, and does not tolerate banning of mere words simply because those words could lead to bad deeds. Although the CPPA's objective was to prohibit illegal conduct, it went well beyond that goal by restricting speech available to law-abiding adults. And if the goal was to eliminate the market for all child pornography, the Court ruled that the government could not accomplish that goal by eliminating lawful speech in the process. The burden should not, however, fall on the speaker to prove that his speech is lawful, instead of on the government to prove that it is not. Furthermore, such an affirmative defense is "incomplete on its own terms" because it "allows persons to be convicted in some instances where they can prove children were not exploited in the production."
As for the provision that forbade advertising speech so as to convey the impression it depicted minors engaged in sexual conduct, the Court found this provision to be even more sweeping. "Even if a film contains no sexually explicit scenes involving minors, it could be treated as child pornography if the title and trailers convey the impression that the scenes would be found in the movie." Although pandering may be a relevant question in an obscenity prosecution, the "conveys the impression" prohibition forbade speech advertising depictions that were entirely lawful. "The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction" than the one drawn by CPPA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

[fisharmor]

Does anyone actually pay attention to the amber alerts? If you do, what you'll find is that a lot of the time they have a car make and model and a license number associated with it.

Now riddle me this... if a child was taken by a random stranger, how do the police already have a particular car in mind?

I'll tell you how. The "kidnappers" they're hunting down with this system are relatives of the child. Most likely the estranged father who has broken one of their arbitrary rules about who is allowed to see the child and when. Which means the amber alert system is just a way for the cops to get everyone else to inform for them.

[phill4paul]

Does anyone actually pay attention to the amber alerts? If you do, what you'll find is that a lot of the time they have a car make and model and a license number associated with it.

Now riddle me this... if a child was taken by a random stranger, how do the police already have a particular car in mind?

I'll tell you how. The "kidnappers" they're hunting down with this system are relatives of the child. Most likely the estranged father who has broken one of their arbitrary rules about who is allowed to see the child and when. Which means the amber alert system is just a way for the cops to get everyone else to inform for them.

^^^

[pcosmar]

Almost all matters of crime are a state issue under the Constitution.

Although this is true,, the States are themselves restricted from violating rights under the Constitution.. (or, they were meant to be)

[Working Poor]

zMtLlC - in that case, it is unconstitutional for their to be a federal law against rape, murder, etc..?

I would rather see people who commit these types of crimes being thrown into crusty state prisons rather than cushy federal prisons.

[UWDude]

The biggest problem with RP is his willingness to protect child predators/molesters. He voted against enhancing the Amber Alert, he voted against outlawing computer generated child porn, and voted against another bill that would have helped the feds track down child predators. Is he hiding something?:confused:

Because Anne Frank could be considered child porn.