Virtual Child Pornography-The Hybrid Seed of Child Pornography is an article that should be read by every parent. The article is an eye opener and sheds a bright light on what can be used as yet another tool by the dreaded and loathed child molester.

What is child pornography? Child pornography is the seed of evil that is implanted in literature, film, or photography, and flourishes to reap a bountiful harvest of material that depicts erotic or sexual acts between adults and children, which is intended for the sole purpose of exciting or arousing sexual desire in the eye of the beholder----the child molester.

Through the eye of the beholder----the child molester---- this material is processed and used as the fertilizer----the food----that nurtures the garden of evil which can be found deep within the darkness of their souls, the coldness of their hearts, and the shadow of their minds.

As the garden of evil begins to grow----to flourish----the child molester reaps a bountiful harvest of their own evil, which is comparable to a harvest of weeds that are capable of infiltrating any flower garden, and bringing damage and ruin to the chosen flower.

The harvest of these weeds leads the child molester to seek out more than what is provided by the processing of the material, used as the food responsible for nurturing the garden of evil.

The child molester begins to stalk his prey in the sweetest flower garden of them all----the garden of purity, innocence and trust. Housed in this garden is the most delicate of the roses---the rosebud----the child.

The child molester, the weed of damage and ruin, seeks out the most vulnerable of the rosebuds, and while appearing to be the source of nourishment needed to bring on the bloom of the rose, carefully implants himself along side the rosebud and slowly chokes the stem of life, leaving the rosebud to decay, and fall away from the stem.

Child pornography is not protected by the Constitution’s free-speech guarantee and is, not only against the laws that govern our society, but also against the laws of morality, and the nature of man.

What is protected by the Constitution’s free-speech guarantee, as of April 16, 2002, and is not against the laws that govern our society, but very much against the laws of morality and the nature of man is, “virtual” child pornography.

“Virtual” child pornography is no more than a hybrid of child pornography, and it nurtures the same garden of evil. The difference between “virtual” child pornography, and child pornography is the fact that “virtual” child pornography is deemed as being a product of computer generated pictures, and uses this computer generation or young adults to depict children, as opposed to using under age children in the creation of the photography or film. In reality it is very hard to see that the computer generated pictures and the young adults are not plucked right from the sweetest flower garden of them all, the garden of purity, innocence and trust.

“Virtual” child pornography was included under the protection of the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act, until April 16, 2002, when The Supreme Court struck it down and banned it from the protection of federal law, in a six to three ruling

Why? Why would The Supreme Court strike down a law that protected the most delicate of the roses----the rosebuds----our children, and arm the weed of damage and ruin----the child molester----with a now legal tool that can be freely used to nurture their garden of evil?

The majority rule of the court found that existing law prohibiting “virtual” child pornography, violated the free-speech rights, and was so broad that it could outlaw Shakespeare.

The information that led to this ruling can be found in two provisions of the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act.

The first provision barred sexually explicit material that creates the image of someone who is not a minor, but appears to be, or that is exploited----advertised----with the idea of giving the impression that a minor was involved in its creation.

In his opinion Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Justice who led the court wrote, “The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction.” According to Justice Kennedy, a number of movies explored themes that fell within the wide sweep of the law’s prohibitions, and these movies were filmed without child actors. He further stated that The First Amendment protected the expression of an idea.

It is important to note that in Justice Kennedy’s opinion he sited the movies, “Traffic,” and “American Beauty,” which both include scenes that portray youthful looking adult actors involved in sexual relations. These movies were made after the law was adopted and did not inhibit the movie’s production.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined this opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas also concurred in a separate opinion.

The second provision extended the definition of child pornography to include computer-generated images, which are virtually not distinguishable from real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

This part of the law was very important because it took into consideration the fact that with the advancement of technology, it is not only very simple to create a simulated image from scratch, but also possible with computer alterations to take images of real children, and pose them in sexual acts.

The ACLU hailed the ruling, and said, “In some of its strongest, most inspired language, the court rebuked the government’s attempt to act as the ‘thought police.’”

Ann Brick, an American Civil Liberties attorney, said, “The court said that instead of punishing the abuse of children----which no one objects to----this law impermissibly punishes the expression of ideas.”

A trade association for pornographers, and others who included a photographer who specializes in erotic photography initially challenged the law.

I for one find it very sad that the seed of evil has once again flourished to harvest a weed that implanted itself right in the middle of the highest court of the land, The United States Supreme Court.

Even sadder is the fact that the weed had the strength to choke the life from the stem of justice, and while using the excuse of the issue of free speech, managed to create an injustice for every child in the United States of America.

To believe that “virtual” child pornography is nothing more than the expression of an idea, is wrong, and to rebuke it as a government’s attempt to act as the, “thought police” is appalling.

It is said, “Justice Is Blind,” and in this case, I truly believe it is. It seems as though the majority rule of The Supreme Court focused on what was most politically correct, and failed to see that “virtual” child pornography is nothing more than the hybrid seed of child pornography; a seed derived from an idea that took the illegal act of child pornography, and while breeding it with the artificial stimulus of computer-generation, produced an offspring that is just as potent as the seed it was derived from.

The justice of injustice has dealt its cruel hand, and now we, as both parents and society must pray that Attorney General John Ashcroft keeps his word and follows through to seek new laws that will protect the sweetest flower garden of them all----the garden that houses the most delicate of the roses----the rosebuds---- the children.







Copyright 2002 Teressa Lee Honeycutt. All Rights Reserved.