Should We Support Virtual Pornography?

1504 Words4 Pages

In today’s fast developing and modern society the thought of seeing two grown adults having sex is still considered taboo. Most Americans cringe at the thought of seeing pornography and dismiss the act as nothing more than a senseless lewd act. Yet, the Supreme Court held that pornography was to be considered a form of personal expression and should be protected under the first amendment (New York v. Ferber, 1973). The Supreme Court did not choose to extend the same constitutional protection to child pornography, arguing against its explicit and hurtful content. Supreme Court Justices argued that child pornography has no scientific, literary, artistic, or political value; they thought the material that was going to arise from child pornography was going to cause more harm than good if they were to allow it to be protected. As society began to change and computer animation technology advanced a growing question began to be formed: should virtual pornography be constitutionally protected, under the argument that it is a form of personal expression and that it’s content has significant scientific, literary, artistic, or political value? Unlike actual child pornography, which has to include two innocent children partaking in sexual acts, virtual pornography consist of two computer generated children engaging in sexual acts. The same rational and arguments that were used by the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of child pornography cannot be applied to virtual pornography. The pain and lifetime of suffering that child pornography brings to its victims was a big reason behind not extending the first amendment to such work; however, virtual pornography does not have any real life victims involved in its work. The images se... ... middle of paper ... ...ess the skills and have the technology necessary to distinguish between virtual and real child pornography. Though the U.S government tried to protect the innocent lives of the victims who have been forced to participate in child pornography by expanding the law to virtual child pornography they failed to adequately express their reasons behind why a law like CPPA should be in existence. Ultimately, the Supreme Court Justices voted to have virtual child pornography be a constitutionally protected form of free speech. Justice O’Connor explains that “the basis for the holding is unclear” and the basis for their decision is based on the oral arguments brought forward by the government. Only time will tell if there are any negative effects from allowing virtual child pornography to exist, yet at this time virtual pornography is constitutionally protected free speech.

Open Document