The prohibited image: child pornography and the first amendment

From Brongersma
Jump to: navigation, search

The justification for child pornography laws ... is that they protect the young, but ... that rationale doesn't hold up to analysis. An additional argument ... is that youths are incapable of giving consent ... {but} these justifications conflict with the simultaneous belief that these same youths will seek out pornography if they have the opportunity. The contradictions are teleologically resolved: all of these beliefs justify censorship, and lead to laws restricting the behavior of the young. ... {T}he laws seemingly designed for the protection of the young are really intended to control them. (pp. 502, 503) [...] The Court's decisions {concerning child pornography} cannot be defended on other grounds without running into overwhelming First Amendment problems. (pp. 511, 512)

source: From the article 'The Prohibited Image: Child Pornography and the First Amendment' by H. Mirkin; Quoted in 'Could they all have been wrong?' by David L. Riegel; SafeHaven Foundation Press; 2005; Article Mirkin from the book 'Porn 101: Eroticism, Pornography, and the First Amendment' by Elias, J., Elias, V., Bullough, V., Brewer, G., Douglas, J., and Jarvis, W. (Eds.); Amherst; NY: Prometheus; 1999