Think about why we consider child pornography wrong. Legally (and morally), it’s because the child is being exploited. However, the Supreme Court Case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition marked a significant change to child pornography.
In the case, child pornography is ok as long as there aren’t real children being depicted. They can be digitally enhanced to make it look like a child. In fact, the entire image can be from someone’s imagination. Through this, this “child” pornography is constitutionally protected because there is no child being exploited here.
Traci Lords became famous in the porn industry because she stared in porn when she was 15. She got a fake ID and claimed that she was 22. She has appeared in 100 films before she became 18. Obviously, as soon as everyone found out, she was in trouble and no one can own any of those videos because it’s considered child pornography.
But hold on here. Suppose Traci Lords decides that she wants to cash in all of this. What if she gave permission to re-release all of her films? Of course, she can’t do that because it’s considered child pornography. But why? What child is being exploited here? It’s only herself, Traci Lords. But if Traci Lords gives permission to show herself as a minor, then there is no one being exploited. So if we’re going to take Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition seriously, we must also say that regular child pornography is ok as long as the adult gives permission to display his/her previous affairs. After all, who’s being exploited here? The child doesn’t exist anymore, the adult gives full permission, so what’s the worry? So if Traci Lords decides to re-release her porn movies, and she’s fully and mentally stable, what are the moral reasons why she can’t?