home

Foley 's Attack on Supreme Court for Not Protecting Children

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:13:30 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Oh, the irony. On June 25, 2002, Rep. Mark Foley addressed the House on protecting the safety of "virtual" children from the liberal Supreme Court. The topic was the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002. From the Congressional Record:

Mr. FOLEY . Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank the chairman for his hard work on this issue, as well the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

I have heard terms described today that this has been rushed to the floor of the House. Maybe those who claim it has been rushed have not had a chance to see the virtual pornography that has been created since the Supreme Court's ruling, endangering our children, virtually created; horrible portrayals of our young and most fragile citizens on the Internet.

Today's passage of this legislation is a pedophile's worst nightmare. Congress is one step closer to helping the High Court side with children over pedophiles.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to make no mistake about it. We are not talking about Scooby Doo or Lilo & Stitch, American Beauty, or any of the other characterizations that have been lobbed against the passage of this legislation. The images of exploited children are indeed virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Our legislation unshackles prosecutors so they can start protecting the children once again.

In the past, prosecution was swift and severe, for good reason, when sexual images of exploited minors were found in someone's possession. Now, after the Supreme Court ruling, unless the prosecutors can find the child in the photo, even if the photo is 10 or 20 years old, the pedophiles walk free. Prosecutors never needed to match the photos with the child, since that is nearly impossible with the laundering system that has been developed from State to State and country to country.

I urge the High Court to reconsider the consequences of its actions the next time they rule on legislation dealing with the protection of our children.

Lastly, we need to get this ban through the Senate and onto the President's desk immediately. With every passing day, another pedophile escapes prosecution because of this flawed ruling of the Supreme Court.

Let us stop wasting time and start focusing on protecting our children.

< National Guantanamo Teach-In October 5 | Washington Times Calls for Hastert's Resignation >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Foley 's Attack on Supreme Court for Not Protecting Children | 3 comments (3 topical)
    Re: Foley 's Attack on Supreme Court for Not Prote (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 08:12:57 AM EST
    Maybe those who claim it has been rushed have not had a chance to see the virtual pornography that has been created
    We know you had the chance Mr. Foley, and you loved every minute of it!

    Re: Foley 's Attack on Supreme Court for Not Prote (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 08:12:57 AM EST
    frankly, it's not clear what the hell he was even talking about, from this rambling discourse. was he referring to cartoons? as in, made up, animated characters? it's too bad he didn't take as much care with real, live children. ah, but there's the irony i suppose.

    Re: Foley 's Attack on Supreme Court for Not Prote (none / 0) (#3)
    by zaitefftheunconvicted on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 08:12:57 AM EST
    If I recall correctly, that particular piece of legislation, approved by the House, was not passed by the Senate. However, if I recall correctly Mark Foley at various times wanted to expand the definition of child pornography so that, rather than referring to lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person, it referred to any lascivious act, which would have meant that some prosecutors would go after models and/or photographers for producing photos of teen models eating a banana or a popsicle, or placing their finger on their lips, as you can see in advertising for various products, such as eyeglass. And, with respect to the Supreme Court's decision re the virtual child pornography, I've read that several years ago, the USDOJ was inclined to regard as criminal the drawings of an artist--such drawings including depictions of minors or possible minors in sexual conduct. Anyway, I'm no fan of Foley, and wasn't for all these years of his posturing about protecting children from the production of virtual images, and such things.

    Foley 's Attack on Supreme Court for Not Protecting Children | 3 comments (3 topical)