Comments: Former ACLU Bigwig Arrested for Hardcore Kiddie Porn

In the case New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 the ACLU`s position was criminalize the production but legalize the sale and distribution of child pornography.The ACLU objects to the idea that porn movie producers be required to maintain records of ages of its performers; this would be ” a gross violation of privacy.”Since the ACLU thinks that child pornography should be legal, it is not surprising to read that it is against making it a felony to advertise, sell, purchase, barter, exchange, give, or receive child pornography. It is particularly distressed about the prohibition on advertisement, arguing that “the law cannot expect every publisher to decode every advertisment for some hidden and sinister meaning,” as if it took a technician-armed with a special decoding device-to ferret out pictures of children ludely exhibiting their genitals.
As legislative counsel for the ACLU in 1985, Barry Lynn told the U.S. Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (of which Focus on the Family President Dr. James C. Dobson was a member) that child pornography was protected by the First Amendment. While production of child porn could be prevented by law, he argued, its distribution could not be. A few years later (1988), Lynn told the Senate Judiciary Committee that even requiring porn producers to maintain records of their performers’ ages was impermissible.
“If there is no federal record-keeping requirement for the people portrayed in Road and Track or Star Wars,” he said, “there can be no such requirement for Hustler or Debbie Does Dallas.”
When Charles Rust-Tierney case comes to court one can only believe this will be their defense case.

Posted by Mike at February 26, 2007 11:21 AM

These "teenage interns" in the Foley incident were of legal age. Quite a bit different than the underage rape victims in the Rust-Tierney incident.

Posted by Jason at February 26, 2007 06:10 PM

Exactly my point, Jason. Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Pam at February 26, 2007 06:14 PM

O'Reilly had some moonbat female on his show last night that said this story doesn't matter "because he doesn't work there any more"!

Posted by Gayle Miller at February 27, 2007 09:00 AM

So now you're defending Foley. What a piece of shit you truly are.

Posted by paul at February 28, 2007 05:07 PM

Lovely comment Paul, I knew I could count on you. No, not defending Foley, just trying to put his unsavory activities and the media hype surrounding them in perspective compared to something truly vile that is only hovering on the periphery of the news. But thanks for playing.

Posted by Pam at February 28, 2007 05:39 PM

And look, I rebutted your comment without resorting to name calling and gutter language. Imagine that?

Posted by Pam at February 28, 2007 05:41 PM

But not without lying.

Posted by paul at March 1, 2007 08:46 AM

As usual, when you don't like what someone is saying, you accuse him or her of lying. Do you really expect people to take your arguments seriously?

Posted by Pam at March 1, 2007 09:47 AM

Most reasonable believe characterizing Foley's behavior as being limited to inappropriate emails minimizes his offense and thus constitutes a defense of his actions, which you then denied, making you a li ar.

Posted by paul at March 4, 2007 10:26 AM

While I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that harcore child porn is a terrible criminal offense. As far as "Rep. Mark Foley's overly-friendly e-mails with teenage interns " goes...his emails were the tip of the "having sex with them" iceberg. Although both offenses are distrurbed "sick" if you want. Foley was in fact raping his young employees. That counts far worse in my book.

Posted by phil at March 9, 2007 03:31 PM