Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Talkback Live
Pope Orders American Cardinals to Rome; Virtual Child Pornographers Find First Amendment Loophole
Aired April 16, 2002 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
The Catholic church's priest abuse scandal has the attention of Pope John Paul II. He has ordered all American cardinals to Rome next week to examine how priest pedophiles have affected the faithful, and to work out a way to restore confidence in the clergy. Now, if you're Catholic, I definitely want to know how this scandal has affected you and your faith in religion and church leaders. Call me at 1-800-310- 4CNN, or e-mail talkback@cnn.com. Right now, let's take a look at what else we're covering today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(voice-over): The pope calls American cardinals on the carpet as a sex scandal tests the faith of Catholics and their leadership.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The American church has had an opportunity to try to get this mess under control.
NEVILLE: Also, virtual child pornographers find protection behind a First Amendment loophole. The Supreme Court says it's OK to show children engaged in sexual acts as long as real children are not used. Does that sound right to you?
And what are your chances in the $325 million Big Game Lottery?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) going to be the winning ticket right here.
NEVILLE: You are much more likely to die in an auto accident on your way to buy a ticket. And, by the way, what would you do with all that money?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(on camera): OK. We're going to start now with the Catholic priest sexual abuse scandal and American cardinals being ordered to the Vatican. With us now is Chester Gillis, a professor of theology at Georgetown University and author of "Roman Catholicism in America." Welcome, Professor Gillis.
CHESTER GILLIS, "ROMAN CATHOLICISM IN AMERICA": Thank you. Good afternoon.
NEVILLE: Good afternoon. Now, the pope had been criticized for not getting involved enough in this crisis. Does this mean now that he understands the magnitude, or is he simply caving into pressure?
GILLIS: Well, I think he understands the magnitude. I And some are interpreting this as a kind of a call to the woodshed of the American cardinals. I do not think it is that at all. I think it is an invitation to have a conversation and to be informed fully in the confines of the Vatican about what has happened in America in the last several months. So I think the American cardinals will welcome this opportunity to have a conversation with the pope and with officials in the Vatican.
NEVILLE: But, what is likely to happen at this meeting? I mean, this is a big deal. It is unprecedented.
GILLIS: Well, it is very important. I think what might happen is, well, people do not want the pope to micromanage the church. They may wish to have the pope macromanage the church so that they could a policy, a national policy which is enforceable by Rome, and perhaps an international policy which is consistent, which bishops are accounted for and which will address the issues directly. I think that would be a very positive result of such a meeting.
NEVILLE: Now, can we expect the pope to be at the meeting?
GILLIS: Well, it is very likely that he will be at some of the meetings. I cannot say that he'll be at all of the meetings. The cardinals intend to be there for two days, and there are many bureaucratic divisions within the Vatican. But I would imagine that the pope will sit in on some of the meetings, without a doubt, and will have his input on the matter.
NEVILLE: Is this going to be a calm, conversation, you know, let me give you the rules, let me refresh your memory of what we're doing here. We're here to help people, not to hurt people. I mean, is he going to get upset, excited?
GILLIS: Well, I don't know. I mean, I would suspect he is going to say, let me invite you to explain what has been happening in the American church, to tell me what you have done about it, what positions do you have, what do you think for the future, and how can I be of assistance in that process. I do not think the pope wants to intervene and be heavy handed, but I think he certainly does wants to bring the universal weight and moral authority of the church to bear on this problem.
NEVILLE: OK. I have a comment from the audience here. Susan from Georgia, stand up for us and tell me what is on your mind. Let's turn here.
SUSAN: OK. I don't feel like my faith has been shaken because of this, but I do believe that many people who are affected, it has shaken their faith. And I also believe that the pope needs to step in because it hasn't been settled in a timely fashion, and I think it is really affecting. I have heard the money that goes to the church, people's, you know, feeling like should they really, you know, be going to this church where a priest one priest out of maybe five have, you know...
NEVILLE: Are you Catholic?
SUSAN: Yes, I am.
NEVILLE: And what do I think about this meeting and the cardinals being summoned to the Vatican?
SUSAN: Well, I think the pope is the head of the Catholic church and I think he is the one who has ultimate decision with those cardinals. And the archbishop that's being under scrutiny right now, I think he is the one who can make things right.
NEVILLE: Do you think this meeting is coming a little bit too late?
SUSAN: No. I actually think it is timely because he gave the American Catholic church the, I guess, the responsibility to handle it, and they have not been able to get to the bottom of it the way they should have. So I think it is timely.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you so much for those comments, Susan.
And, Professor Gillis, of course now, Cardinal Law in Boston, he has been under a lot of scrutiny. In fact, he has been asked to resign by the parishioners because he has in the past allegedly transferred known pedophiles to other parishes and not done anything about this situation. Now, is a situation like this likely to be called out single-handedly in this meeting?
GILLIS: Well, it's hard to tell what kind of conversations will happen with regard to Cardinal Law's position. I would imagine it will come up, at least tangentially, with one of the committees and the cardinal himself may raise it if he feels that he has lost the moral authority and the ability to be effective, although he said intends to stay and he may seek the backing of the Vatican and the pope's blessing for his ministry to continue. That's a possibility, or there may be some meetings of a strategy of how he might be replaced in the future.
NEVILLE: I've asked you to try to figure out or guess what is going to happen in the meetings. Now, I want to ask you some personal questions. When you heard of this most recent scandal and the attention that has been brought to it, what are your thoughts? How do you feel about all of this?
GILLIS: Well, I think that everyone was disappointed. I also was disappointed in the church. There's a certain anger. There's a sense that they were not vigilant about they should have been doing.
But at the same time, the other side of it is the church preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ and it doesn't get preached in a lot of other places. You don't go to the bowling alley to hear the gospel. So, people will maintain their fidelity to the church, but clearly they will want the church to be accountable. American Catholics, if they, for example, were to stop giving their donations to the church, if they used their economic power, it could be very damaging to the church. And the reason they might withhold this would be that they want the church to change and change more rapidly than it is willing to do.
But in general, I mean, everyone is disappointed, and so am I. But I give the benefit of the doubt that the church can correct itself and can get on track.
NEVILLE: OK. Is it Manuel? Are you Catholic?
MANUEL: Yes, I am.
NEVILLE: Would you stop giving your money to the Catholic church because of all this?
MANUEL: No, I would not.
NEVILLE: And what are your thoughts about all of this?
MANUEL: I think that as prior people have mentioned, certainly it's timely. I believe this is not a new phenomenon. It has been going on for a while in certain other areas, areas like Chicago or New York, as examples. In terms of faith, I think that the church should have decided to come clean and essentially there is a perception that in the past, they had been not...
NEVILLE: I'm going to redirect you for a second. Are you embarrassed to say that you're a Catholic?
MANUEL: No, I am not. No, I am not. I think that if they make good on this, they can actually strengthen the church, if they solve it in a way that...
NEVILLE: I'm going to ask you another question. What do you think should happen in this meeting with the cardinals in the Vatican?
MANUEL: I think they should listen to what the cardinals have to say, as well as, basically, take action where necessary.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and being honest with us here this afternoon on TALKBACK LIVE. And, Professor Gillis, thank you very much for your insight as well and thank you so much for joining us here today.
GILLIS: My pleasure.
NEVILLE: Sure.
And up next, we're going to talk to priests about how they're dealing with the firestorm that has erupted out of this molestation scandal. We'll be back in a moment. Don't go anywhere.
(APPLAUSE) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back everybody. We're talking about how the abuse scandal in the Catholic church is affecting the faithful. Reverend C. John McCloskey is the director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C. He serves as a counselor to university students and priests. Also, on the phone with us is Reverend Lawrence Quinn. He's the pastor of the church of Our Lady of Mercy in the Bronx. Welcome to both of you.
FATHER LAWRENCE QUINN, PASTOR, OUR LADY OF MERCY: Thank you.
FATHER C. JOHN MCCLOSKEY, CATHOLIC INFORMATION CENTER: Thanks for having us.
NEVILLE: OK. Now, Reverend McCloskey, I want to begin with you. First of all, I have to say that being Catholic, that they are writing reverend, but is that proper? Shouldn't I call you father?
MCCLOSKEY: Father would be perfect.
NEVILLE: OK. I just want to go on record (UNINTELLIGIBLE) confirming that. And what about you, Father Quinn?
QUINN: Same thing. Whatever you want, whatever you want to call me, call me.
NEVILLE: Father Quinn, unfortunately, I cannot see you, but I have to ask you this question first, and that is how embarrassing is this for you?
QUINN: Well, it's very unembarrassing because some of my colleagues have done things using their clerical status. It is one thing to abuse a child, but using your status to do it, is very embarrassing. And you feel like, you know, if you're in a police precinct, for example, right, and a cop does something wrong, who feels the pain? The whole precinct. And we feel what they have done. We really do.
NEVILLE: Does it affect the way you do your job?
QUINN: No. No. No. In fact, as a matter of fact, I've had no parishioner of mine upset in the sense of their faith about what has been happening. We understand that people are human. They do bad things in every profession including yours. And people are not losing their faith because of it.
NEVILLE: And I understand -- you are right. There are "bad people" in every walk of life, but priests are people who are supposed to be trusted like no one else...
QUINN: I know that.
NEVILLE: ... and has to be the ultimate sense of betrayal.
QUINN: I understand that. But we have bad apples in every group, no matter how you look at it.
NEVILLE: Father McCloskey, let's bring you in on this conversation. You talk to priests all the time. You counsel them. What are they saying to you? Do you find that there is an overall sense of embarrassment or what?
MCCLOSKEY: I think there is an overall sense of sadness for these type of things happening in our church. But as Father Quinn knows well, all of us here, thousands, tens of thousands of confessions during our priesthood, and we know to what low levels all people but (UNINTELLIGIBLE) priests can descend to.
But I see this as a wonderful opportunity for true reform and renewal in the church, to make sure these type of things do not happen again. And all of us can work together that with our prayer and also with our stronger faith, which should be stronger, not weaker, as a result of all of this.
NEVILLE: Why do you think you this happened in the first place?
QUINN: Who are you asking that question to?
NEVILLE: Go ahead.
QUINN: To me?
NEVILLE: Yes. Go ahead, Father Quinn.
QUINN: I basically think the reason the problem happened is that the church, the bishops, you know, the ones on top, were trying to avoid scandal to their people. Now, the word that's used is cover-up, right?
NEVILLE: Yes.
QUINN: And I think it was basically not to hurt our faithful by what certain priests have done. They were trying to avoid scandal to the people, which would mean something that would hurt their faith. And I don't think it was cover-up. It was avoiding scandal, which is a totally different thing.
NEVILLE: But, Father Quinn, I would like to get to the crux of the matter, and that is why does this happen in the first place? Why does it seem that the priesthood seems to attract pedophiles?
QUINN: I think every group of people attracts pedophiles, not just the priesthood. Check your own reporting group.
NEVILLE: No. Listen, we are not trying to be self-righteous or anything like that...
QUINN: I know. I know.
NEVILLE: ... but it is a rampant problem.
QUINN: It is not just the priesthood. There are other groups: doctors, lawyers. There are pedophiles in every group.
NEVILLE: Father McCloskey?
MCCLOSKEY: The rate of pedophilia is higher in the Protestant ministry and also in other caring groups and organizations. It's not unique by any means to the Catholic priesthood. Well under two percent since 1960 of Catholic priests have been involved in this type of activity. It is disgusting. It's scandalous. It has to stop. But to paint the Catholic church as somehow more guilty in this type of behavior is irresponsible, I think.
NEVILLE: OK. Let's go to Jeff in Tennessee. Jeff, you are live. Go ahead speak out for us.
JEFF: Yes. I am a Catholic from Tennessee, and I was just wondering, I am very curious as to the use of the word scandal in the Catholic church. And, actually, it is a crime. The word crime should be used. Could you answer that?
NEVILLE: Father Quinn, would you like to address that?
QUINN: Crime? You said the word crime, Jeff?
NEVILLE: Yes.
QUINN: OK. I think it is a crime. I am not denying that. I don't think because you have a Roman collar that you are innocent of what you have done and you should be, you know, taken to court and put into jail if you have done it.
NEVILLE: Father Quinn, what would you like to see the church do?
QUINN: I think we have to be a little bit more direct with the legal system, and put these people into court and possibly into jail. I mean, what can I say? What else can I say?
NEVILLE: I have a couple of Catholic people in the audience here. Raise your hand, let me see where you are. I want get your response to that. What do you think -- ma'am, stand up for me. Diane (ph), what do you think about that idea, what Father Quinn just said?
DIANE (ph): About responsibility?
NEVILLE: And about possibly putting people in jail.
DIANE: Yes. Yes, I would agree with that because I think the gentleman on the phone from Tennessee said it's a crime. And they have not used that word. They've stayed away from that word.
QUINN: It is a crime. It is a crime.
DIANE: And my outrage has been that we've heard about these things going on for 30 years in Boston, and 30 years of people whose lives have been ruined and traumatized, and it was not stopped 30 years ago or out in the open 30 years ago, and that is what is -- as a Catholic, that is what I am angry about. QUINN: So am I.
DIANE: Yes, that things have not been out in the open sooner.
NEVILLE: But I think -- what do you think, you know, I think that when children are children, first of all, it is too heavy for them -- first, they do not even know that's something wrong or they know it is wrong but they do not really know how to express it. They're afraid to express it. They've been betrayed by someone they are supposed to trust.
And then so, that is why it's coming out now, because once they are in their, you know, 30s and 40s, they are an adult and they can actually maybe handle it a little bit better and address the problem face on.
And let me take a pause here because right now we are going to -- live to Hyattsville, Maryland, where Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington is speaking to reporters. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
CARDINAL THEODORE MCCARRICK, ARCHDIOCESE OF WASHINGTON: ... going to Rome this coming week for meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday in the eternal city. The holy father has asked us to come and to meet with some of the cardinals in Rome who are in charge of the different cabinet ministries of the Vatican.
I think I am certainly looking forward to being in Rome and being with the holy father. I was with the holy father last week. I was there with the meeting of the Papal Foundation, of which I was a member. And we were privileged lunch with him. And during that time, obviously, one of the things of discussion was to talk about this problem that is facing the United States and the church of the United States.
And I was impressed. The holy father did not say too much, but when he did ask questions and when he did get involved in the conversation, I think there were three things that obviously are concerned to him. One of them is the concern for the victims. You know, this holy father has such a tremendous love for children, it has been a great mark of his pontificant. He always so close to the youngsters, and that this is happening is really a tragedy that he feels very deeply.
Then secondly, he has the concern for the faithful, the faithful throughout the country, the faithful throughout the world, but especially in the United States. The faithful of our country, the Catholic people of our country, have always been so close to the holy father and so supportive of the holy father. And so, in a very special way, this is a concern that he feels, that these people are losing their confidence, they're being scandalized. And this is something which I think touches them very deeply, too.
And then, thirdly, and this is more the theologian in this extraordinary man. The whole question of the priesthood and the holiness of the priesthood that he feels that is being violated by all of this. And we Catholics believe that this is a holy calling, and demands holiness on the part of those who strive to be good priests. And when something like this happens, when there are sick people and people who abuse others, it is something that upsets us all, and certainly in a special way, upsets the holy father.
So, I look forward to the meeting. I think it will -- they will give an opportunity for all of us American cardinals to express our own concerns and maybe our own ideas on what form a real solution on a national level should take. And I think that probably is one of the most important -- the elements here, when the holy father is present, we can talk about the church throughout the country, and hopefully come up with some ideas which will be the beginning of the policy and a program which will guarantee our people that this -- as much as you can, being human beings, that this will not continue and will not happen again.
So, that is why I he look forward to being in Rome. I look forward to being with the other cardinals, all of whom have so much experience and so much goodness that I am sure it is going to be a worthwhile meeting and we will tell you about it when we come back.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) on a national level. In your pastoral letter, it also addresses the view that there is a need for each diocese to develop (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
MCCARRICK: Yes. The way the Catholic church is organized, as you know, we are not all branch offices. We are -- each diocese is its own local church and that is the way the Lord established it, going back to the New Testament, going back to the acts of the apostles. Each of us has our own responsibility, so that there is no real national policy that we can make and oblige each other.
But if the holy father through his law-giving authority says to the church in the United States, I want everyone to have a policy, you and your individual diocese should have your own policy, and I think what we have to do then is make sure that even though there may be different policies depending on the different size of the diocese, different composition of the diocese, yet certain elements have to be in it. And I think that is what we will be striving for when we see the holy father.
QUESTION: Cardinal McCarrick, can you address the situation in Boston, specifically Archbishop Law and the call for his resignation? Your feelings on that? Should he resign or should he...
MCCARRICK: Well, I spoke to his eminence about a week ago, I guess the last time I spoke to him. And he is really determined to straighten this out. He feels that this happened on his watch and he wants to make sure that he controls it, that he fixes it, that he cures any difficulties in the policy, any difficulties in the procedures that they have had there.
You know, I think this is his goal now, and I would think that he is going to try as hard as he can to keep going and to fix it while he is still archbishop. And so, I do not see his eminence resigning. I think he feels he has a responsibility to the church of Boston, to make this the very best policy of the United States and to clear out all of the mistakes that they may have done in the past.
QUESTION: And a follow-up question. (OFF-MIKE) these scandals (UNINTELLIGIBLE) are no longer able to conduct their ministry in the same way, that they now are supervised, in that they do not get as intimate and develop the kinds of relationships that, at one point, were encouraged by the church. Could you answer that, sir?
MCCARRICK: Yes, I think this is unfortunately the case of our time. I know when I was in parishes, you would love to go to school and the kids would climb on you and it would just be wonderful because they love the priests and they -- it is a relationship of fatherhood. That's why people call us father.
And yet now, because of this, I think that people are hesitant. Young priests are hesitant to work with children. And that is such a shame because that is what so many children need, to be able to have someone in whom they can trust, in whom they can have confidence. I hope that this will pass. I hope that, again, our culture will find the value of having priests be able to really become part of the families of the people. And I think in great measure, that is still happening, but I know many of our priests, as you mention, many of our priests are now holding back. They are now hesitant because of these terrible problems which have affected, you know, only less than two percent of our priests. But it has become so blown up, that's as it probably could be, but because of that, the priests are concerned about this.
I keep saying, we have to put it into context. Even though one case, even one little child being hurt by this way is too much and it drives you crazy that this can happen. But let us remember that we are talking about less than two percent of our priests, and that so many of our great Catholic priests are great heroes and great balanced, wonderful, holy men, men striving to serve the people with all they can. I think that is what we have...
NEVILLE: And we are listening to Father Theodore McCarrick addressing reporters in Maryland. Father Quinn, I want to bring you in to react to some of Father McCarrick's comments he made there, just saying, listen, you know, we are here. We are fathers to -- the father figure to a lot of these children.
QUINN: Yes, we are. And I agree with Teddy McCarrick.
NEVILLE: How else do you feel about what he just said?
QUINN: I think that he said the right thing. You know, we are trying to do the best we can. But at the same time, there is a -- what could you say -- an abyss right now because of what has happened. For instance, I'll give an example. When I hear the kids' confessions from a school -- are you hearing me?
NEVILLE: Yes. I am listening.
QUINN: OK. I would give them absolution and penance. I would place my hands on their heads. Right now, I will not do that. Why? Because the kid can go home and say, mom...
NEVILLE: He touched me.
QUINN: Father touched me.
NEVILLE: Now, that is sad.
QUINN: Yes, that is really sad because -- you personally, you feel like, I mean -- a kid goes home and says, mom, the priest touched me. I cannot do that anymore. And that's really like a touching thing when you are forgiving a kid of his sins and you cannot do that. I would not do that myself. I mean, other priests might do it, but I would not do it.
NEVILLE: Father McCloskey, do you hear that from other priests?
QUINN: Father McCloskey? Father Quinn -- oh.
NEVILLE: I was talking to the other guest.
MCCLOSKEY: The same thing -- I've heard the same thing from other priests. But I think this it has been going on for a good amount of time, that priests in general are much more careful in terms of their personal relationships with people as a result of these unfortunate incidents that have happened not just in the last few months, but the 15 or 20 years. One after another.
We have now -- it's kind of an avalanche which I hope will be the final completion of all of this. And also, as cardinal McCarrick was talking about, we can make a real effort to make sure that the selection of priests and also in their continuing formation, that we have the type of priests who would never engage in this type of conduct.
NEVILLE: I want to share with you now, actually a poll that was conducted. And the question, when asked, has the controversy shaken your faith in Catholicism -- this is of Catholic people -- 83 percent of the Catholics polled said no, 15 percent said yes.
I would like to ask Father Quinn, I'd like to ask you personally, has this shaken your faith?
QUINN: My faith personally?
NEVILLE: Yes.
QUINN: No. No.
NEVILLE: Absolutely.
QUINN: And my people -- not one person from my parish has had any shaking of their faith because of this.
NEVILLE: Father McCloskey?
MCCLOSKEY: No. My faith is strengthened. Our faith is built on Jesus Christ revelation to us. It's built on the rock of Peter. There are cardinals over there meeting with the successor to Peter this week. And all of us Catholics know we are sinners, even great sinners at times. So, scandals of this sort, they sadden us but they don't weaken our faith, because we all need mercy in God's sight, in his judgment.
NEVILLE: Father McCloskey and Father Quinn, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE.
QUINN: My pleasure.
MCCLOSKEY: My pleasure. Thank you for having us.
NEVILLE: Sure. Absolutely.
And up next: A Supreme Court ruling has virtual child pornographers celebrating. We'll be back after the news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE, everybody.
The Supreme Court has struck down a law banning virtual child pornography. What that means is simulated sex acts with children can be made, owned, and distributed, as long as they do not involve any real children. This would include computer-generated images of children. Pornographers had challenged a 1996 child pornography law banning such images.
And let's find out more about the law and this decision from CNN correspondent Jonathan Aiken -- Jonathan, welcome.
JONATHAN AIKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Arthel.
NEVILLE: Tell us, first of all, what is the Child Pornography Prevention Act?
AIKEN: The Child Pornography Prevention Act, as you mentioned, was passed six years ago.
And the idea was to bring federal law up to snuff with technology, especially when it comes to the use of digital technology and the creation of what is called virtual pornography. Real pornography involving pornographic images, involving real children remains illegal. It remains unprotected under the Constitution. It is not considered First Amendment free speech.
This involves something called virtual pornography or virtual children, in which you can use digital technology to create images of children or to use cut-and-paste, which I think most of us are familiar with who use computers, to take, for instance, a real child's head, put it on another body that has either been digitally created or a body belonging to someone else and vice versa.
The idea was to give federal prosecutors a stronger tool as they went after child pornographers. And that was the intent of the law as Congress meant it so in 1996.
NEVILLE: OK, so what problem did the Supreme Court have with that law? And, in fact what exactly did it rule today? What does this all mean?
AIKEN: Well, the decision was 6-3, which means it was split. And it was not exactly a question of conservatives vs. liberals on this one. The big issue is language here. And just how far did Congress, how far did intend to go when it wrote the law?
I want to refer to some notes here. So pardon me as I look down.
NEVILLE: Sure.
AIKEN: The court ruled that the law was unconstitutionally vague in its language and basically -- and I'm oversimplifying here -- that Congress really stretched when it applied this definition of pornography when it wrote this law.
And in particular were two phrases that raised the attention, not only of the critics who managed to bring the case before the court, but also of the justices themselves. The law says that any picture or image that -- and I'm quoting here -- "is or appears to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and material" -- quoting again -- "that conveys the impression of a minor engaging in same is considered to be pornography."
And those phrases were considered to be too vague by the justices. And that is why the law was struck down.
NEVILLE: What is the Justice Department going to do with all of the this information?
AIKEN: Well, Attorney General Ashcroft is going to be speaking to at 4:15 this afternoon. He'll have some comments. Basically, the Justice Department is going to be following federal law and upholding federal laws as they appear on the statutes now. Obviously, they are disappointed with this. They really felt that this was a tool.
And prosecutors across the country have felt that this really gave them the opportunity to use computer technology against child pornographers who were using computer technology themselves. The problem comes, really, in interpretation. The critics who brought the case before the court, which was a coalition called the Free Speech Coalition, which consisted of people who engage in the art of manufacturing pornography, had argued that this not only was a violation of free speech, but also had a chilling effect on more legitimate forms of theater and art.
And Hollywood also joined in the suit as well, arguing the same thing. In fact, when the justices had arguments on this case on this question, they referred to movies such as "Romeo and Juliet" and "Traffic" and "Titanic," all of which involve or could involve teenagers engaging in sexual acts.
And the question is, is this artistic interpretation of Shakespeare in the case of "Romeo and Juliet" or is it pornography? And what this law is saying is that it is too vague to cover this in one general blanket term.
NEVILLE: So, does that cover the immediate consequences for the ruling?
AIKEN: Well, the immediate consequences, well, there are going to be a couple, first of all involving federal prosecutors. They tell you it is going to make a tough job even worse. Prosecutors, not only on the federal level, but also on the state level who go after child pornographers say that the technology is so good right now that it is virtually impossible to distinguish a real image of pornography -- that means an image of pornography involving a real child -- vs. one that has was digitally altered or in which the child has been created.
You get to questions, then, is this child alive or dead? Is this child old or young? Is this child a citizen of the United States or elsewhere? Is it modeled on a real person? Is it modeled on someone's fantasy?
Until technology is able to come up with a way that you can show that there are various pieces of the picture put together to form a digitally enhanced composite image, it is going to be really tough for federal prosecutors to make a case against people who use these digital images and in use of child pornography.
NEVILLE: Jonathan Aiken, thank you so much for that report.
AIKEN: Sure.
NEVILLE: And with us now are Kat Sunlove. She is the legislation affairs director and lobbyist with the Free Speech Coalition. She is the former publisher of the adult magazine "Spectator" -- also Colby May, director and senior counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice.
Welcome to both of you.
COLBY MAY, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Sure.
Colby, I want to start with you.
Does this Supreme Court ruling surprise or disappoint you at all?
MAY: Yes, I think it is certainly a disappointing decision today, because the court made it clear that it recognizes Congress was correct in acknowledging this as a major problem that needed to be addressed, that law enforcement was considerably inhibited in its ability to successfully prosecute because people would use the defense that this was in fact not a live child or a minor, but rather was a simulated presentation, computer-generated or otherwise.
And that was one of the reasons Congress felt that it had to, back in 1996, pass this law to essentially step up or modernize the criminal prosecution around this kind of issue and this kind of activity -- so certainly a disappointing decision, because the problem still remains.
NEVILLE: Kat, how do you see it?
KAT SUNLOVE, FREE SPEECH COALITION: Well, of course we are very pleased with the decision.
But I think it is important that we point out here that the Free Speech Coalition did not challenge the entire bill, the entire law, but only two very precise and specific phases: "he appears to be a minor" and "conveys the impression."
The problem with those, of course, is that our age definition of a minor includes virtually mature 17.9-year-old young people. So, to put a 22-year-old in bobby socks and make her look as though she is 17 and criminalize that is irrational.
NEVILLE: But what about that obsession with making people look like they are young, innocent kids and making them sexual objects?
SUNLOVE: Well, I don't have any answer for that, because pedophilia is absolutely a mystery to me.
NEVILLE: So, what is the difference between pedophilia and child pornography?
SUNLOVE: Well, pedophilia, of course, is actually abusing a child. Child pornography is making a record of that crime. When there is no child involved, then there is no harm to a child. And I would also point out that Free Speech Coalition did not challenge the computer morphing, wherein a picture of an actual child might be grafted onto another photo, but only the digitally created images and the issue of promoting it to convey the impression that minors will sex.
NEVILLE: One second here. Let me let Don jump in on this conversation.
Don, what do you have to say about this?
DON: Well, the comment I just made a moment ago was that any act or any action by grownups and adults that uses children, abuses children, particularly for profit, has got to be the most despicable thing that a person can do. And I don't think it is a question of -- I don't think the framers of the Constitution had any intention whatever that it could be used, in any way shape or form, to perpetuate that sort of thinking or that sort of thing, particularly on children.
SUNLOVE: But of course not. But we are not dealing with images that include actual children. It's a free speech issue.
NEVILLE: I have a question for you, Kat, when we come back. And I've got to take a break right now. We have a lot more to discuss on this subject. And I want to hear from you as well, so get the e-mails and the phone calls going. TALKBACK LIVE continues after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: And welcome back.
We are talking about a Supreme Court ruling striking down provisions of the 1996 Child Pornography Act and whether virtual child pornography is the same as child porn that uses real children.
Kat, I have got to talk to you again. So, does this ruling, first of all, make virtual child pornography legal, virtual child pornography legal?
SUNLOVE: Well, I guess it does.
It is important for me to point out that the industry that I represent, the mainstream adult entertainment industry, does not produce child pornography. We did not challenge this law in order to protect our own interests. We are in the business of making adult products for adults with adults. But there is a very important First Amendment issue here. This law would basically have criminalized a thought crime, fantasy material, material where no child is harmed and no child is involved.
And the court was 6-3. This is a good decision. Even Justice Thomas was on the side of upholding our case.
NEVILLE: Kat, excuse me. Do you have children?
SUNLOVE: Yes, I do, and grandchildren.
NEVILLE: Would it bother you if someone had the thought of engaging in a sexual act with any of your children or your grandchildren?
SUNLOVE: Well, of course. No one could be more opposed to child pornography than I am.
Harming children, whether it's poverty, hunger, poor housing, or child abuses, is really appalling to me. But that is not what we are dealing with here. We are talking about a law. And, in fact, if you want to look at your previous segment, if you want to look to where there is a lot of pedophilia, don't look at the adult entertainment industry. Look at the church.
NEVILLE: Emily from Alabama, what are your thoughts?
EMILY: I think they made the right decision, because the definition that they had of pornography with this was very broad, very -- like in the movies that they use it, it is not -- no one would look at those movies and just be like, "Oh, that is so sick." This definition was way too broad. And I think it is covered under the First Amendment that we have a right. It's literary merit or freedom of expression. NEVILLE: Thank you.
Colby, would you like to respond to that?
MAY: Well, I think the Congress took real pains to define what the term the statute used, which was "sexually explicit." And it then described that as being things like bestiality and a forum of obscene masturbation, etcetera. And those were real efforts to address a real problem, because all of us know, as a society and I think as a government, even under the First Amendment, we have a right to uniquely protect children and also to remove the tools and the influences that lead to crime.
And there has been a number of decisions which recognize that the use of child pornography is important in the breaking down of the inhibitions of children, to then get them to either pose for or participate in the activity and also it uses to incite those that engage in being pederasts or pedophilia.
(CROSSTALK)
MAY: Certainly legitimate reasons for the government to want to do something in this area.
NEVILLE: Excuse me, because I have got a lot of audience comments here and I want to get them in.
Beth, go ahead.
BETH: Personally, I think that the courts have just created a double standard for themselves. If it is wrong enough to participate in something like that, how do you justify pretending it? How can you say that it is OK to pretend if it is not real, but -- if it is wrong enough to say you can't do it, it is definitely wrong enough to pretend.
NEVILLE: Thank you, Beth.
And Rachel here from South Carolina, stand up and speak out, please.
RACHEL: First of all, I think it is sick to find something -- a good decision -- that this is a good decision. And I think, morally, that it is wrong. And I think that, socially, it is going to produce in our culture more of an idea of monkey-see, monkey-do: If I see this, then it is OK for me to do it. And if it is my imagination, why can't I go ahead and do this?
I think that it is very wrong.
NEVILLE: Thank you.
SUNLOVE: Let me make a comment here.
NEVILLE: Go ahead, Kat. Go ahead. SUNLOVE: You know, all kinds of movies depict illegal behaviors. "Natural Born Killers," if this were really the depiction of a crime, that would not have been called entertainment, would it? It would have been called a crime.
So, we have all kinds of fantasy materials in our movies. But we don't bar them simply because they depict something illegal. I certainly am not a defender of virtual child pornography or any other kind of child pornography. But I am a big defender of the First Amendment. And we can't make exceptions this way. It is very clear: "Congress shall make no law."
NEVILLE: Robbi from California, you are on TALKBACK LIVE.
CALLER: All right.
The First Amendment was never created to enhance criminal activity. When you talk about child pornography, Klan activity, the things they say about the Constitution, the Constitution was created for Americans to enjoy the pursuit of happiness. And clearly child pornography is a criminal activity.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much.
I want to let Nancy from South Carolina jump in.
Go ahead, Nancy.
NANCY: I want to disagree with Kat. She said this is about thoughts. And every adult and every young person in this room knows that behavior begins in our thoughts. And we plant this kind of seed, and we are going to reap a whirlwind.
We just had a conversation about what was happening in the Catholic Church. And this is not about liberty. This is about exploitation of children. Whether it is pretend or animation or not, it still plants those seeds, those thoughts. And it is going to lead to behavior that hurts children.
NEVILLE: Thank you, Nancy.
Kat, quickly, your final thoughts on this?
SUNLOVE: You know, when there is not a child involved -- all our of fiction is fantasy material. The First Amendment protects us that way.
I don't defend depicting 7- and 8- and 10-year-olds kids. But this law was much too vague. And the court saw it that way, quite rightfully. Congress is supposed to make laws in the least restrictive way to achieve its goal. This law would not achieve the goal of protecting children. All it would do would be to criminalize otherwise legal material.
NEVILLE: OK, Kat Sunlove and Colby, thank you so much for being with us here on TALKBACK LIVE. SUNLOVE: Thank you for having me.
NEVILLE: Sure.
And we are going to take a break and play "What if?" What if you won the $325 million lottery?
Sean Callebs is with hordes of a lot of hopefuls in Augusta, Georgia. And we're going to talk to him in a moment. You've got to hear all these stories -- back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: OK, everybody. Welcome back.
We're going to call this the fantasy portion of our show today, where we pretend to be the big winners in tonight's Big Game lottery. Think about it: $325 million. What could you do with all that money?
We're going to go to CNN correspondent Sean Callebs in Augusta, Georgia, where he is a bona fide witness to lotto mania.
How hot is lotto fever?
SEAN CALLEBS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, man, Arthel. Just look behind me. You can tell.
There are scores of people right now waiting in this -- it's a service station/truck stop. It's right on the Georgia, South Carolina border. And what makes this significant, Georgia is one of the seven states taking part in the Big Game lottery. South Carolina isn't. I guarantee you, if you walk through this line and ask people, about 85 percent of them would be from South Carolina, all coming out here willing to sink money in on the long shot of winning the Big Game lottery.
Now, Arthel, get this, the odds: one in 76 million. What does that exactly mean? Well, you're 8,000 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to be able to pick the six winning numbers. One other study shows that the end of the Earth, better chance of the world ending after being struck by a meteor than being able to pick all the winning numbers tonight.
So, the odds aren't with you. But you know what? That is stopping no one.
NEVILLE: It's stopping nobody, Sean.
OK, thanks for joining us.
And, Shane, what would you do if you won the money?
SHANE: I would probably quit school and just drive around all day.
NEVILLE: Oh, shame on you. You did not tell me you were going to say you were going to quit school. No quitting school, Shane.
SHANE: Three hundred million dollars, you don't really need to get a career or anything. You have money set for the rest of your life.
NEVILLE: Oh, Shane, at least he is keeping it real here on TALKBACK LIVE.
OK, all right, all right, I have in my hand a Big Game ticket. This is Chris, who works on our staff. Chris, you just got jacked.
We are out of time, everybody.
Sean, thanks so much for joining us. He is out there in Augusta. And thanks to all of you for watching.
I'm Arthel Neville. I will be back tomorrow at 3:00 Eastern with more TALKBACK LIVE.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
