In this article, we will explore a controversial topic that touches on women's rights, the First Amendment, and the fight against pedophilia. We have included several links within the text so you can follow along and fact-check. Ultimately, it's up to you to decide where you stand.
We must ask ourselves: Do we truly have rights, and if we do, how far do those rights extend? Is it possible to apply them equally, or will someone’s rights inevitably suffer? If they do, whose rights will it be, and to what extent should we allow them to be infringed upon? Once we start down this slippery slope, will it ever stop? Or will it continue to spiral? The United States Constitution says that "all people are created equal," but equal to what and to whom? Is this notion genuine, or is it just a farce?
There’s no question that we believe all women should be entitled to equal rights. A woman should have the right to make choices about her own body—whether she chooses to veil herself, go nude, perform in pornography, become pregnant, or not. These are her choices. But do these decisions affect only her? Or do they impact others as well? Does the government have the right to restrict these rights? Yet, every time we turn around, it seems the government is dictating what she can or cannot do.
In the United States, a woman has the legal right to perform in pornographic videos or images as long as she is at least 18 years old. Men and women aged 18 or older also have the right to view or obtain these videos. Allegedly, it does not matter if the government deems the material "obscene" or "immoral." Countless websites host these images and videos, often with minimal filters. Unfortunately, there’s very little stopping someone under 18 from accessing this material. Most of the responsibility falls on the viewer’s honesty in confirming their age, and search engines offer few, if any, protocols to filter out illegal content.
But what happens when legal lines blur? Consider a legal-aged woman who is petite or flat-chested. For example, take a pornographic actress named Kitty Jung. She stands at 4 feet 9 inches, with a bust size of 32AA and no pubic hair. If you search "Kitty Jung 2008," when she first began appearing in porn at age 18, you’ll find a plethora of images where it’s difficult to determine whether she’s of legal age. Her body type resembles that of a child, raising significant questions.
The question arises: Does this woman still have a constitutional right to perform in these videos? Do these videos fuel pedophilia? Does the government have the right to intervene and prevent her from performing? Or should they prevent the viewer from watching these videos? What safeguards does the government have in place to ensure that a person is not convicted for legal images that may be misconstrued as illegal? With many actresses sharing this body type, how are these rules enforced? And are they enforced fairly?
The government has established a distinction between “obscene” material viewed in private and “child pornography,” with the former being legal and the latter illegal. However, individuals can quickly find themselves on the wrong end of an indictment without even realizing it. Can you confidently define the difference between legal and illegal content? Most people cannot, and the lines can easily blur—especially when dealing with legal actresses who look younger than they are.
The U.S. Supreme Court explained obscenity as: "The relevant standard for unprotected obscenity is whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." (Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 489 (1957)). But who determines these standards? The same people who claim the government can decide when and if a woman can have an abortion?
What is legal can turn into illegal depending on legal defenses and if the actress in question is known. Did you get the discovery in your case? Did you see the image the government is using against you? Often, defendants don’t even get to view these images and must rely on the word of the government and their lawyer. What if your lawyer doesn't know the actress either and bases their defense solely on the appearance of the image?
Should we ignore the line between what is legal and illegal simply because someone is attracted to individuals who appear younger? Does this train of thought violate the woman's rights? Should a woman who looks youthful be condemned to a life without sexual intimacy, simply because of how she looks? Are we criminalizing those who are attracted to her? Where should we draw the line?
Remember, no matter how complex the issues we face, we all have the power to question, challenge, and advocate for the rights of ourselves and others. You have a voice, and it deserves to be heard.
For daily posts and more information on how to make our voices heard, please follow Power of Our Voices, LLC on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/powerofourvoices/.
Comments