Associated Press
WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices, whose tastes are said to run to opera and Cole Porter, spent an hour Tuesday discussing the sex scenes in modern movies and whether the government can ban depictions that seem to show children having sex.
Sitting in a borrowed courtroom for a second day, the court considered a free speech case with implications for the future of high technology, if not high art.
Free speech advocates and pornographers challenged a 1996 law in which Congress forbade any visual depiction of what "appears to be" children in sexually explicit situations or that is advertised to convey the impression that someone under 18 is involved.
Through computer wizardry not available when the court placed child pornography outside First Amendment protection in 1982, pornographers can create dirty movies about children and adolescents that involve no actual children.
Legitimate filmmakers also can fool the eye by using youthful-looking adult actors to portray adolescents, and it was the consequences of that practice that captured the justices’ attention Tuesday.
Outright use of children to depict sex acts is illegal, as is possession or transmission of illicit child pornography.
"I go to the video store, and I buy three movies: ‘Traffic,’ ‘Lolita’ and ‘Titanic,’ " Justice Stephen Breyer said. "Each contains simulated sexual activity by someone who is 17" or younger. "The question is, why am I not guilty (of possessing child pornography) under your interpretation?"
Deputy solicitor general Paul Clement later said the government isn’t after people who "pick up ‘Traffic’ at the Blockbuster." He also said that, in his opinion, the movie would not have suffered if that sex scene had been cut.
Copyright ©2001 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.