In today’s society, people are debating if “virtual” child pornography should be banned. Most people believe that it should, while others believe that it should not be banned at all. Since the Supreme Court decided that “virtual” child pornography is legal, most people have felt that they have made a horrible mistake. By check many articles on this topic, I have decided to use two fairly good articles, written by two well-known editors, Wendy Kaminer, editor at The Atlantic Monthly, and Paul Rodriguez, editor of Insight on the News. Even though I agree that “virtual” child pornography should be banned, Kaminer presented a stronger argument that “virtual” child pornography should not be banned.
The article, “Virtual Child Pornography Should Not Be Banned,” by Wendy Kaminer, argues that “virtual” child pornography should not be banned because no child is harm. Kaminer serves on the national board of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Kaminer claims since no “real” child is being harm in the production, it should not be banned.
Kaminer start her argument by saying that it is possible that “virtual” child pornography may encourage pedophiles to act on their impulses or may help them in seducing children, but there is no evidence proving that these images have that want effects. She relied her sources on stating what the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA)prohibited and what she believe they fail to realize and considered when making the Act of 1996. She also made points on how movies and ads are involved in “virtual” child pornography.
Kaminer argument was good, it was not that strong for me to think on it but she did point out good examples such as: how forty-year old mistake fifteen years old for young adults, which is true because in most cases young girls look older than they seem to be in life. Another good point is how films have scenes when young adults are having sex with children, which a lot of films have sex scenes with children having sex with adults or children their own age. While this could have been her strongest argument, she made it until a weak one, but she did support her reason by bringing up a case from Oklahoma, where they judged a film obscene.
Kaminer believes virtual-porn prohibitions are easy to abuse, since evidence of social, scientific, or artistic value is irrelevant to charge of child pornography. She states how Senator Jesse Helms includes sex education materials in his definition of child porn. Another source she uses is from the case in 1985, American Bookseller v. Hudnut, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a local antiphon ordinance that was based on the assumption that pornography leaded to the objectification of women and contributes to sexual violence and discrimination. Kaminer argument was basic on little evidence and also little emotions. She basically stated problem the CPPA fail to realize. She did a good job at stating her claim but a poor job at showing strong evidence.