Sexually exploiting minors is illegal. Therefore the creation, dissemination, and possession of child pornography are illegal. They are illegal for the purpose of protecting children and discouraging the abuse of children in general. Cases like “Ferber” and “Osborne” operate under the harm and mixes of the harm and offense principles. We need to prevent children from the physical and mentally harm that can occur from being exploited in pornography. But when it comes to animals, do we have the same duty to protect them and prevent future harm from occurring? What kind of rights should we extend to animals?
In the recent case of U.S. vs. Stevens, The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision made by Congress that made it a federal crime to creat, possess, or sell “crush videos” and other images of unlawful cruelty to animals. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals found that the government had no “compelling” interests in suppressing speech and images depicting animal cruelty. They didn’t recognize analogies to “Ferber” and “Osborne” and overall felt that the law was overly broad and would concern too many other related instances. There were also thoughts that human expression rights outweigh any basic rights of animals, and that animals don’t suffer the same physiological damages that children who participate in pornography do as they grow up.
It is my opinion that the original decision made by Congress, to make “crush videos” and other unlawful images of animal cruelty a federal crime, should have been upheld. Depictions of animal cruelty should be just as unprotected as child porn. Even if one feels that animals have no rights what-so-ever there are still compelling reasons for the government to outlaw animal cruelty speech. Operating under the harm principle, we need to consider the kind of harm that can occur to both humans and animals. Abusing animals is illegal in the United States, and in order to prevent abuse of all kinds (including private abuse) we need to put a stop to the creation and dissemination of this material.
Chaffe would not have considered animal cruelty to be protected speech. His theory on "protecting speech that serves a social interest," "worthless" speech refers to profane, indecent, or defamatory speech, which is of "slight social value as a step toward truth" Animal cruelty does not serve any social interest and is considered by the majority of people in the United States to be indecent. Therefore it's creation, possession, and sale should be made illegal.
Those exposed to videos of dog fighting videos or other forms may feel that the behavior is acceptable if they see a recording of it. Impressionable children especially need to be protected from seeing this material; less they grow up thinking animal abuse is suitable behavior. The same goes for adults, even a full grown adult may be swayed to participate in animal cruelty if he’s lead to believe he could make money, friends, or just have fun doing it. With this thought in mind we need to consider that animal cruelty harms more than just the animals within it. Such speech would have a bad tendency to encourage people to continue the behavior. And if one argues that it becomes difficult to judge the jurisdiction based on where the video was created then we need cite the “Osborne vs. Ohio” case and argue that we need to also dry up the market for such material, and make the mere possession of animal cruelty material illegal.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Post #5 Option #4 - 'Sexting'
No doubt that the subject of “sexting”, the practice of teens taking and spreading nude photos of themselves, and other forms of self-produced child porn are sensitive issues with all kinds of potential problems. Our first concern when approaching the issue of child pornography as a whole should be to protect the children involved. Our second concern should be to cripple the industry and prevent the future dissemination of child porn. And our last concern should be to punish the person in possession of the material. However, when young teens are exploiting themselves by taking and spreading the photos on their own, the issue becomes even more complicated.
We want to protect the children from the trauma that can result from being exploited. But how do we protect them when they’re doing it to themselves? It’s one thing to arrest and prosecute a grown adult who has forced or tricked a young child into making pornography. The victim and the criminal are clear in cases like those because the adult should know better and the child is often naïve or unwillingly used. But when a young teen creates and disseminates pictures of themselves, we aren’t sure who to blame and who to protect.
There is the recent case of the 14-year-old New Jersey girl who has been accused of child pornography for posting nude photos of herself on the popular social network site, MySpace.com. The young girl could potentially be convicted of distribution and would face sex offender status under Megan’s Law. The argument that police and other legal officials may be using in this case is that they want to set an example by punishing the young girl. Under Osborne v. Ohio standards one of the compelling interests is to disrupt the market for child porn. Police and court officials may feel that by punishing the young kids who make and distribute photos of themselves that they are going after “the market” by going after them. But the first compelling state interest in Osborne v. Ohio is to protect the actual minor in the photos.
When handling these kinds of cases, it is important to make sure that the minors in question are punished. They need to know the consequences of their actions, and to be more careful about the things they do on and offline. But are we protecting them by labeling them as sex offenders? A harsh label that will follow them their entire lives, it will prevent them from getting jobs, living in certain neighborhoods, and much more. We need to consider the fact that minors are neither wise nor experienced. Teenagers often act spontaneously based off their hormones and emotions and don’t truly realize the gravity of their actions. In light of that fact we need to apply special treatment to the punishment of minors for child pornography. We need not extend the same expression rights to minors when it comes to sexually explicit material, even if the minor consents, because we can still consider that speech worthless due to the fact that minors lack wisdom. They may not see the harm in posting nude photos of themselves as art or expression in the present, but in the future they may easily grow to regret that decision. If a minor consents to be part of something that is purposed to have some kind of artistic value, then we should apply SLAPS protection to the material. But only if its artistic or scientific value is proved and the minor's guardian has consented to the child's participation.
We need to protect the minor, but we also need to disrupt the market and show others that there are consequences for this kind of behavior. When someone is both the minor used and the person spreading material, they should be punished. They’ve done the harm, but the harm is only to them so there isn’t a real victim, per se. Labeling them as sex offenders is hardly protecting them however, they’ll carry the trauma with them forever with that sentence. Instead, cases of minors exploiting themselves should be handled based on circumstances. If it involves something happening on school grounds, the school itself should have a procedure for punishing students for spreading and accessing pornographic material on campus. When something occurs at off school grounds, then it should be handled by police. Cases involving someone exploiting themselves should be punished less severely than others. The minor in question should be forced into a court appointed therapy or counseling .The minor’s guardians should be warned about keeping better track of their children, should another incident occur the guardians might be held more accountable.
Cases that involve a minor being in possession of a picture of another minor should also be handled based off circumstance. If one minor willfully sends a pornographic photo to another minor, and that minor is caught with the photo (say a girl sends a photo to her boyfriend). He should be punished the similarly as the girl who made the photo, counseling and possibly some kind of probation. But if a minor sends a photo to other minors, or posts it on the internet, then the punishment should be more severe. Sex offender status is still too strong. Instead the minor should receive some time in juvenile hall or some kind of community service. We want a punishment that will teach them a lesson but not something that could potentially ruin their entire lives.
I suggest we handle these cases based off circumstance because the minors for the most part are foolish. We cannot hold them all to certain standards because young people are often ignorant and unaware of consequences, they are not criminals. They do stupid rash things and we need to both protect and educate them on the matter. Punishment isn’t always necessary.
We want to protect the children from the trauma that can result from being exploited. But how do we protect them when they’re doing it to themselves? It’s one thing to arrest and prosecute a grown adult who has forced or tricked a young child into making pornography. The victim and the criminal are clear in cases like those because the adult should know better and the child is often naïve or unwillingly used. But when a young teen creates and disseminates pictures of themselves, we aren’t sure who to blame and who to protect.
There is the recent case of the 14-year-old New Jersey girl who has been accused of child pornography for posting nude photos of herself on the popular social network site, MySpace.com. The young girl could potentially be convicted of distribution and would face sex offender status under Megan’s Law. The argument that police and other legal officials may be using in this case is that they want to set an example by punishing the young girl. Under Osborne v. Ohio standards one of the compelling interests is to disrupt the market for child porn. Police and court officials may feel that by punishing the young kids who make and distribute photos of themselves that they are going after “the market” by going after them. But the first compelling state interest in Osborne v. Ohio is to protect the actual minor in the photos.
When handling these kinds of cases, it is important to make sure that the minors in question are punished. They need to know the consequences of their actions, and to be more careful about the things they do on and offline. But are we protecting them by labeling them as sex offenders? A harsh label that will follow them their entire lives, it will prevent them from getting jobs, living in certain neighborhoods, and much more. We need to consider the fact that minors are neither wise nor experienced. Teenagers often act spontaneously based off their hormones and emotions and don’t truly realize the gravity of their actions. In light of that fact we need to apply special treatment to the punishment of minors for child pornography. We need not extend the same expression rights to minors when it comes to sexually explicit material, even if the minor consents, because we can still consider that speech worthless due to the fact that minors lack wisdom. They may not see the harm in posting nude photos of themselves as art or expression in the present, but in the future they may easily grow to regret that decision. If a minor consents to be part of something that is purposed to have some kind of artistic value, then we should apply SLAPS protection to the material. But only if its artistic or scientific value is proved and the minor's guardian has consented to the child's participation.
We need to protect the minor, but we also need to disrupt the market and show others that there are consequences for this kind of behavior. When someone is both the minor used and the person spreading material, they should be punished. They’ve done the harm, but the harm is only to them so there isn’t a real victim, per se. Labeling them as sex offenders is hardly protecting them however, they’ll carry the trauma with them forever with that sentence. Instead, cases of minors exploiting themselves should be handled based on circumstances. If it involves something happening on school grounds, the school itself should have a procedure for punishing students for spreading and accessing pornographic material on campus. When something occurs at off school grounds, then it should be handled by police. Cases involving someone exploiting themselves should be punished less severely than others. The minor in question should be forced into a court appointed therapy or counseling .The minor’s guardians should be warned about keeping better track of their children, should another incident occur the guardians might be held more accountable.
Cases that involve a minor being in possession of a picture of another minor should also be handled based off circumstance. If one minor willfully sends a pornographic photo to another minor, and that minor is caught with the photo (say a girl sends a photo to her boyfriend). He should be punished the similarly as the girl who made the photo, counseling and possibly some kind of probation. But if a minor sends a photo to other minors, or posts it on the internet, then the punishment should be more severe. Sex offender status is still too strong. Instead the minor should receive some time in juvenile hall or some kind of community service. We want a punishment that will teach them a lesson but not something that could potentially ruin their entire lives.
I suggest we handle these cases based off circumstance because the minors for the most part are foolish. We cannot hold them all to certain standards because young people are often ignorant and unaware of consequences, they are not criminals. They do stupid rash things and we need to both protect and educate them on the matter. Punishment isn’t always necessary.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)