Discussion Question #1
What do you think of the Supreme Court's decision in the virtual
child pornography case? The court said, "There are many things
innocent in themselves,
such as cartoons, video games, and
candy, that might be used for immoral purposes, yet we would not
expect those to be prohibited because they can be misused."
What do you think of the court equating virtual pornography, video
games, and candy?
Discussion Question #2
The Supreme Court declined to define the harm from child pornography
as the harm of children abused by those who consume child pornography.
How should the law define harm?
Discussion Question #3
The Jake Baker Case is particularly disturbing as it shows the failure
of the law to protect a victim when the harm is extremely visible.
Do you agree with the court's analysis that the threats to the woman
identified in the story or to the women who were likely targets
of Baker's murder/rape/torture threats were too vague? Do you think
this case would be decided differently today given the Internet's
increased role in our daily lives?
Discussion Question #4
What policy or law changes can you imagine to make the Internet
a safe space for women and children, a space which does not assault
our bodily integrity? What sort of controls can you imagine that
would prevent the harm that women and children currently suffer
as a result of online pornography? How should the law go about balancing
free speech interests and the right to bodily integrity, sexual
autonomy, and physical safety?
Return to VAW Module II
Go to the Discussion