Written Case Analysis 7.docx - Michael Brady WCA7 In case...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.

The preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.
Michael BradyWCA7In case one on page 173, The parties involved would be the pornography company and thepornography subscribers or users and the court system. In this particular case, I think the courts did theright thing, yes, I do not agree with it at all, but there is nothing illegal about virtual charters doing pornor being in porn. If you really think about virtual porn you really wouldn’t know how old a computer-generated person is unless the said pornography express, it is using a title of such nature. The Courts hadthe duty to uphold the constitution laws and I believe they did just that by allowing the porn industrytheir rights the court took good care not to violate the porn industry’s rights in this case. (Ruggiero,2015)For the subscriber and or user of this computer-generated porn, I personally find it disturbing thatthey would subscribe or even watch something of this nature. I think about it like this if a person iswilling to watch computer generated children in pornography even if it is virtual then what is stopping

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 3 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
N/A
Tags
Supreme Court of the United States, child pornography

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture