Thread by @gaydissection

csa //

So I've read the full text of this excerpt I've seen directed at a voice actor multiple times, stating that she is posting misinformation in saying virtual child pornography is illegal. The text is a summary of an appeal by the 9th Circuit of the Supreme Court, which (1/?

https://twitter.com/Boba_Tett/status/1365063229798424577

successfully overturned some aspects of the CPPA (Child Pornography Protection Act) in April 2002. The Appeal contended that the CPPA is unconstitutional because its terminology was vague enough to cause a freedom of speech violation.

Three judges participated in this Appeal

Justice O'Connor, Justice Thomas, and most notably, Justice Scalia... the infamous Antonin Scalia himself, a well-known conservative advocate in the Supreme Court. Here's an article NPR wrote up about him... npr.org/2016/02/13/140…

I forgot to link the 2002 decision, here it is: law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/t…

That said, Scalia was notorious for challenging the Supreme Court on many sensitive topics, among them gay rights and abortion. As an LGBT person (and I suspect most ppl reading this are), I would not invoke

his name in any discussion pertaining to our lives as content creators and consumers. He was, plainly, a racist homophobe (and more). So please be aware of that if you are sharing this.

Now, the real discussion here--this information is dated and inaccurate.

In 2002, yes, the virtual pornography rule was overturned. But if you follow the text of the page linked below, you will see that the modern PROTECT Act does uphold CPPA's original text. freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendmen…

The PROTECT Act states exactly what the voice actor in question posted. Anyone using a since-overruled appeal of a rewritten, now-defunct congressional act... don't. In the USA, federal law states that virtual child pornography creation and possession can be a felony.

That said,

I am not a lawyer. Individual cases make very complex arguments related to these laws, and judges may interpret them in varying ways when delivering a ruling. The law isn't quite as cut-and-dry in execution as it is in text form. And in general, I caution against using legality

as a means of deciding morality. Justice Scalia used his position of authority to revoke and protest our rights on many occasions, and in some cases, he succeeded. The law is written and approved by flawed people; it is inherently flawed in itself.

With psychological studies

backing the assertions of the PROTECT Act, and my general interest in preventing child exploitation are what inform my beliefs. Not words on paper created by a flawed institution. Even IF the law stated that virtual cp was fine, I would stand up to the Courts. Their validation

is not necessary, but appreciated. As both citizens and activists, we can do better with or without legality playing an integral part.

For more reading about the psychology of simulated cp and its correlation to criminal actions check here:

https://twitter.com/ospenchin/status/1365107970086825988?s=19

@threadreaderapp unroll