nobody: How can you say that "Child pornography has always been illegal in the United States" and then use an example from 1982, New York v. Ferber, and further suggest that until that time the Supreme Court was "permissive" toward any kind of pornography. The writeup you are contesting specifically states that "Most child pornography was more or less legal until the eighties." In using a decision from 1982, you're certainly no where near contesting his statement, and that decision might even be coonsidered as supporting it. It doesn't make any sense.
wavin: While it can certainly be argued that the actual photography of child pornography is child abuse, this cannot be said of the viewing of child pornography. The illegal act should be the actual child abuse, and not, for instance, the possession of child pornography. However, the people have given up yet another right for the security of their children. The thinking goes that, if you make possession of child pornography illegal, then there will be less of a demand for it.
"Censorship is more depraving and corrupting than anything pornography can produce."
- Tony Smythe