Here’s a link to Michael Doyle’s article on CAAF’s decision in United States v. Bowersox, which the No Man discussed here.  The No Man is quoted in the article.

5 Responses to “McClatchy article on CAAF’s Bowersox decision”

  1. ConLaw says:

    How is Ashcroft not on point?  The government’s legitimate interest in regulating child pornography is preventing the abuse of real children.  Can you read a Stephen King book in your barracks?

  2. Phil Cave says:

    For years the government (including DOHA) said that marijuana was a gateway drug to harder drugs.  While the USPS study that was based on is now discredited, there is still a discussion within the scientific community on either side.
    Of course if that were true, the US would be addicted to hard drugs to a larger degree than now, and certainly in the older population – remember VN, etc?
    Well, same theory for anime and other cartoon porn.  Apparently if you look at cartoon porn you will look at real porn and then commit sexual assault.  I’m sure we can find someone to say that.

  3. ConLaw says:

    Yes and is that not the exact argument the Supreme Court rejected in Ashcroft?

  4. stewie says:

    you can always charge under clause 1 or 2 and not need real children.

  5. TC says:

    Phil,
    Your analogy is a disturbing one. It’s hardly a leap to say that looking at virtual child porn can ultimately lead to looking at actual child porn. Furthermore, it’s pretty clear from the decision that calling this anime or cartoon porn fails to properly describe the images.  And finally, the gateway argument notwithstanding, I think the military has a strong interest in getting rid of servicmembers who view images of real-looking adults and children engaged in sexual intercourse. If that’s not service-discrediting conduct, please tell me what is.