Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Does Supreme Court Decision Give License to Pornographers?

Aired April 17, 2002 - 08:49   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.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: Now, time to sound off. Kiddie porn is one thing, but virtual kiddie porn is something else all together, and that is what the Supreme Court said yesterday when it ruled that Congress may not ban images that only appear to show real children engaged in sex.

The controversial decision is a victory for both pornographers as well as legitimate filmmakers. A broad ban on simulated sex could have made it a crime to show a love scene between an adult and a child in films like "American Beauty." And Attorney General John Ashcroft called the decision a setback, but vowed to press on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm disappointed that the court chose to make that obligation to prosecute child pornography more difficult. However, I am undeterred in my resolve to do all that I can to protect our children from the pornographers and other predators who would prey on their innocence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: So, is the Supreme Court ruling, in effect, a license for child pornographers? Joining us now from Washington, Bob Beckel, Democratic political strategist. How you doing this morning, Bob?

BOB BECKEL, DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL STRATEGIST: I'm doing fine, Paula.

ZAHN: Well, I am glad to hear it. Cliff May standing by with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy. Hope you are doing equally fine this morning.

CLIFF MAY, FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY: I am very well, thanks.

ZAHN: Cliff, I am going to start with you this morning. I know you agree with the Supreme Court decision. So what do you say to all the attorneys out there this morning who are saying, Wait a minute, this is going to make our prosecutions of child pornographers so much harder because in some cases we can't determine, in virtual pornography, whether a real child was involved or not?

MAY: I say, tell Congress to go back and write a better law. What you have here is a 6 to 3 decision. On the same side, you have people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps the most liberal justice, and Clarence Thomas, perhaps the most conservative justice. Neither of those folks likes child pornography. Neither of those folks wants to hinder the prosecution of child pornographers, but they do want...

ZAHN: Hang on though. Hang on, Cliff, Cliff, Cliff. That's exactly what attorneys are saying will happen. You got this guy from the criminal division of the Child Exploitation Office, and he says it continues to get tougher and tougher to determine whether images involved a real child or not.

MAY: That's why the members of Congress get paid the big bucks. They've got to go back and draft a law that doesn't infringe on the First Amendment, which is what Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas and six out of the nine justices, and really seven in a way, because Sandra Day O'Connor had problems with it, too. That's what they believe. The law itself is too vague, and they will not let this infringe on First Amendment rights. Don't forget, we're talking about computer generated images here, cyberspace. Computer generated images are thought products, and as sick as that thought may be, the Supreme Court is reluctant to establish a thought crime, to ban thought. It's a complicated issue, it's new turf.

ZAHN: All right. Bob Beckel, you're the kind of guy that has usually supported First Amendment rights in the past. You are adamantly opposed to the decision by the Supreme Court. Why?

BECKEL: First of all, let me say -- and I find myself in the unusual position of supporting Attorney General Ashcroft's position...

MAY: And Justice Scalia, Bob.

BECKEL: But let's be clear about this. The idea of banning real pictures of children on the Internet was because children were put at risk. Why were they put at risk? Because there is a number -- regrettably, a large number out there of people who watch this stuff, pedophiles, people who want to do danger to children. This ruling will feed that even worse. They will get even more likely, I think, to commit real acts against children, and when Cliff says it's thoughts, well, I mean thought, what are we talking about here? It's thought, I guess, when you put a real picture out there, but who can tell the difference between these things? Look at them. They look like real people, real children, having sexual relations. Now, how in the world could the Supreme Court interpret that as free speech? All it's going to do is soak the Internet with even more of this stuff, now that these pedophiles and porn creeps and thugs and punks who ought to be in jail now have a license to go do even more of it.

ZAHN: Yes, why don't you see this as a free license to child pornographers, Cliff. You heard exactly what Bob just had to say.

MAY: Because, again, if you read the Supreme Court opinion, what you see is that this law is written in such a broad fashion that it would, in effect, criminalize Romeo and Juliet, it would criminalize the movie "Traffic" where you have a scene of Michael Douglas' daughter and she's on drugs, and she puts herself out as a child prostitute, and the whole film could be banned. They have written -- it's a sloppily written law, it is overbroad. What Clarence Thomas said very clearly, in his concurring opinion, didn't agree exactly, his concurring opinion was, look, what they have to do -- they can restrict this stuff, but not the way they have done it here, this is ham-handed, they've turned the First Amendment upside down. They have got to go back and make another shot at this.

ZAHN: Bob, what about that? You hear filmmakers making that argument, too, that it would criminalize "Romeo and Juliet," and "Traffic."

BECKEL: Look, you know,the filmmakers will make an argument over anything have to do with the First Amendment, even whether they can use toilet paper or not. The fact of the matter is -- I don't take any interest in what the film industry says. They've been trying to get around and use the First Amendment to defend every piece of junk they put on the movie screen or on television. All this is -- by the way, this computer generated stuff is getting better. And it's very hard to understand...

(CROSSTALK)

BECKEL: Hey, wait a second. So what you are saying here, I think, Cliff, is we ought to have First Amendment rights for the movie people, but maybe you could craft a law that sort of says these guys can't have First Amendment rights, and then you said, that's what they pay Congress the big bucks for. This is the same Congress that has put us another trillion dollars in debt. Are you kidding me? You think they can figure out how to do this? In the meantime, children are at risk. And I will tell you something, I disapprove so strongly because children will suffer as a result of this, for your cherished, I presume, interest in protecting the movie and television industry. Hell with them. I mean if they got a problem with it, have them not do scenes with young kids.

MAY: I'm thrilled to see you agreeing with Justice Scalia and John Ashcroft. I am going to organize a dinner party for you. I had hoped for this eventuality for a very long time, but when you see...

BECKEL: I'd like to serve the soup, is where I would like to be.

MAY: But here's the important little bit of news here. The Supreme Court takes the First Amendment very seriously. That is a problem for those who have passed the recent campaign finance reform bill. If they're protecting this kind of free speech, watch what they do about political free speech.

ZAHN: You know, Cliff is trying to infuse a lot of guilt in you, Bob, this morning, are you going to get a headache when you are really starting to internalize that you're supporting Justices Scalia and Thomas here?

BECKEL: I know, he is trying to do that. And once in a while, I can agree with the enemy, and in this case, I certainly do. And I think, you know, look, you've got a situation here where the right and the left are coming together on this, and that's an unusual but true situation. You watch. The alliance of people against this, I'll even be with Justice Thomas, and I'll tell you, you talk about a headache, but it's worth it because these children, by this decision, more children, hundreds and thousands of children are put at risk in order to protect these punks.

ZAHN: All right, time out. We've got to leave it right there this morning.

BECKEL: OK.

ZAHN: Cliff May, Bob Beckel, thanks for your time. When you host that dinner party, can we all come from AMERICAN MORNING, Cliff?

MAY: Oh, sure.

BECKEL: Bring a camera. You'd like to that. The soup spilling over.

ZAHN: With a camera, too. All right. Thanks, gentlemen, good to see you. See you later on in the week.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com