In 1996, Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act (“CPPA”) to provide a broader protection against sexual exploitation of children. This act prohibited “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct…” In short, it prohibited pornographic images in which the actors could be taken for minors, as well as computer-generated or virtual child pornography.
Many people had averse views of the CPPA, and the Supreme Court foresaw the CPPA capturing a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech. The court had an issue against the banning of material that merely “conveys the impression” that it contains depictions of children, whether or not it actually consisted of child pornography. The Court also disagreed with the CPPA when it came to real versus virtual child porn.
Many people disagreed with the Courts opinion saying that virtual child pornography encourages the sexual appetite of pedophiles, hence prompting abuse of real children. They also said that virtual child pornography could be used to groom children for abuse if a pedophile showed virtual depictions of naked children adult-child sex to potential victims in order to lower the child’s inhibitions.
On the contrary, many also supported the Courts decision saying that if we restrict virtual child porn that could “encourage pedophiles”, we would also have to take other measures such as stopping the school systems from reading Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet because it could encourage young adults to commit suicide.
Which argument do you support?
Source: http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv3/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__review_of_law_and_social_change/documents/documents/ecm_pro_063994.pdf