Child Pornography

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #9835 Reply

    Child pornography is the visual representation of minors beneath the age of 18 involved with sexual intercourse or the visual representation of minors participating in lewd or erotic behavior designed to arouse the viewer’s sexual interest.

    Child pornography may include actual or simulated sexual activity involving minors, deviant sexual acts, bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or even the exhibition of genitals in a sexually arousing fashion. More often than not, however, the mere visual depiction of a nude or partially nude minor does not rise towards the degree of child pornography. Thus, home movies, family pictures, and educational books depicting nude children in a realistic, non-erotic setting are protected because of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment into the U.S. Constitution and don’t constitute child pornography.

    Child pornography differs from pornography depicting adults for the reason that adult pornography might only be regulated in case it is obscene. In miller v. california, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that pornography depicting adults is obscene if (1) the work, taken as a whole by an average person applying contemporary community standards, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the work depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) the work, when taken in general, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. On the other hand, child pornography can be banned without regard to whether or not the pornographic depictions of minors violate contemporary community standards or perhaps satisfy the Miller standard for Obscenity.

    In New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (U.S. 1982), the Supreme Court explained the rationale underlying the distinction between child pornography and adult pornography. The Court said that the federal government has a compelling interest in protecting minor children from Sexual Abuse and exploitation. Using the same rationale, the Supreme Court later said that even the mere possession of child pornography can be prohibited without violating the First Amendment. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 110 S.Ct. 1691, 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (U.S. 1990).

    However, the Supreme Court drew the line with so-called “virtual” depictions of child pornography. In 1996 Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA), which expanded the federal prohibition on child pornography to incorporate not only pornographic images made using actual children, but additionally “any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture” that “is, or seems to be, of a minor participating in sexually explicit conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256. Civil libertarians worried that the CPPA would be applied to ban a range of sexually explicit images that appeared to depict minors but were generated by means aside from using real children, such as through the use of computer-imaging technology.

    The Supreme Court agreed. In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 122 S.Ct. 1389, 152 L.Ed.2d 403 (2002), the Court ruled that the CPPA’s provisions went too far by trying to ban speech that created no real minor victims of sexual abuse. Nor could the CPPA be sustained on grounds that pedophiles might use virtual child pornography to seduce actual children into participating in real child pornography. The prospect of crime, by itself, does not justify laws suppressing protected speech, the Court said.

    In response to your Court’s decision, the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives introduced almost identical bills that try to implement the substantive provisions of the CPPA in a way that would survive constitutional scrutiny. The Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002 was approved by the House (H.R. 4623 § 3(a)) and as of early 2003 was pending prior to the Senate Judiciary Committee. S. 2511, § 2(a).

    When you look at the new bill, Congress changed the prohibition against images that “appear” to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct to a prohibition against “computer image or computer-generated image this is certainly, or is indistinguishable” from a conventional image of child pornography. Similarly, the proposed legislation replaced language prohibiting electronic images that “convey the impression” that the pornographic material contains a visual depiction of a minor participating in sexually explicit conduct with an Scienter requirement, rendering it an offense to advertise or promote material “with all the intent to cause any person to think that the materials is, or contains, a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.”

    Finally, the House and Senate included a number of “findings” that try to bolster the constitutionality associated with proposed law. Section 2 associated with the bill details at length the way the limitations positioned on prosecuting child pornographers who pander both “real” and “virtual” child pornography have frustrated law enforcement efforts and meritorious prosecutions within the Ninth Circuit. These findings are plainly meant to provide any courts that might scrutinize the proposed legislation with a compelling interest required to uphold it over First Amendment objections. However, as of early 2003, Congress had not yet passed the bill.
    Further readings

    Clark, Matthew C., ed. 2002. Obscenity, Child Pornography and Indecency. New York: Novinka Books.

    Tate, Tim. 1990. Child Pornography: An Investigation. London: Methuen.

    U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary. 2003 Stopping Child Pornography: Protecting Our Children additionally the Constitution: Hearing Before … 107th Congress, 2nd Session, October 2, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. G.P.O.

    #22284 Reply
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
Reply To: Child Pornography
Your information: