Analysis of the Ethics Behind the Supreme Court Rulings
With the combination of digital animation software and internet distribution, concern for the spread of child pornography is reaching new heights. If the image of a child is digitally animated and used in a virtual sexual manner does it still constitute as offensive or harmful material? Erotic film and video has reached a level of acceptable mainstream adult entertainment and the current rating system and restrictions on distribution attempt to keep the explicit material out of the hands of minors. This does not change the offensive content of child pornography and will not if sexual innocence is to be protected with the existence of legal virtual child pornography.Consenting adults making sexually explicit material for mature adults is protected under first amendment rights, but even considering a form of child pornography as acceptable is offensive in itself. If depicting children in sexual conduct in film or video is illegal if the child is real, then depicting an animated or virtual image of a child should lawfully coincide. It is the idea and not the form that is offensive. The logic of the argument seems clear, but may need some clarification as to why the form of the material has no distinction in the case.
The Digital Divide
In considering form, how is it that a separation between the form of real footage or animated virtual footage should qualify as a distinction in offensive, potential harmful sexual material of children? It is understood that drawing or animating images of children engaged in sexual activity is not directly harmful, as no one is being harmed in the process of its creation. It is in the indirect, what can be considered "secondary harm", that the material is offensive and potentially harmful, (Bonevac, 209).
|
|