Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court strikes down ban on virtual child pornography
Associated Press ^ | 4-16-02

Posted on 04/16/2002 7:32:20 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:08 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban on virtual child pornography Tuesday, ruling that the First Amendment protects pornography or other sexual images that only appear to depict real children engaged in sex.

The 6-3 ruling is a victory for both pornographers and legitimate artists such as moviemakers, who argued that a broad ban on simulated child sex could make it a crime to depict a sex scene like those in the recent movies "Traffic" or "Lolita."


(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: childpornography; scotuslist; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 541-551 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Here's the decision, in case anyone is still interested in the actual legal questions, instead of mere Bible-thumping:



Syllabus

NOTE:  Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v.
FREE SPEECH COALITION et al.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


No. 00—795. Argued October 30, 2001–Decided April 16, 2002

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A), but also “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is “advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression” it depicts “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” §2256(8)(D). Thus, §2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called “virtual child pornography,” that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology. Section 2256(8)(D) is aimed at preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography. Fearing that the CPPA threatened their activities, respondents, an adult-entertainment trade association and others, filed this suit alleging that the “appears to be” and “conveys the impression” provisions are overbroad and vague, chilling production of works protected by the First Amendment. The District Court disagreed and granted the Government summary judgment, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. Generally, pornography can be banned only if it is obscene under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, but pornography depicting actual children can be proscribed whether or not the images are obscene because of the State’s interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process, New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 758, and in prosecuting those who promote such sexual exploitation, id., at 761. The Ninth Circuit held the CPPA invalid on its face, finding it to be substantially overbroad because it bans materials that are neither obscene under Miller nor produced by the exploitation of real children as in Ferber.

Held: The prohibitions of §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are overbroad and unconstitutional. Pp. 6—21.

    (a) Section 2256(8)(B) covers materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller, and the reasons the Government offers in support of limiting the freedom of speech have no justification in this Court’s precedents or First Amendment law. Pp. 6—19.

        (1) The CPPA is inconsistent with Miller. It extends to images that are not obscene under the Miller standard, which requires the Government to prove that the work in question, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, is patently offensive in light of community standards, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, 413 U.S., at 24. Materials need not appeal to the prurient interest under the CPPA, which proscribes any depiction of sexually explicit activity, no matter how it is presented. It is not necessary, moreover, that the image be patently offensive. Pictures of what appear to be 17-year-olds engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards. The CPPA also prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea–that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity–that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries. A number of acclaimed movies, filmed without any child actors, explore themes within the wide sweep of the statute’s prohibitions. If those movies contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within the statutory definition, their possessor would be subject to severe punishment without inquiry into the literary value of the work. This is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: A work’s artistic merit does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene. See, e.g., Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Mass., 383 U.S. 413, 419. Under Miller, redeeming value is judged by considering the work as a whole. Where the scene is part of the narrative, the work itself does not for this reason become obscene, even though the scene in isolation might be offensive. See Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229, 231 (per curiam). The CPPA cannot be read to prohibit obscenity, because it lacks the required link between its prohibitions and the affront to community standards prohibited by the obscenity definition. Pp. 6—11.

        (2) The CPPA finds no support in Ferber. The Court rejects the Government’s argument that speech prohibited by the CPPA is virtually indistinguishable from material that may be banned under Ferber. That case upheld a prohibition on the distribution and sale of child pornography, as well as its production, because these acts were “intrinsically related” to the sexual abuse of children in two ways. 458 U.S., at 759. First, as a permanent record of a child’s abuse, the continued circulation itself would harm the child who had participated. See id., at 759, and n. 10. Second, because the traffic in child pornography was an economic motive for its production, the State had an interest in closing the distribution network. Id., at 760. Under either rationale, the speech had what the Court in effect held was a proximate link to the crime from which it came. In contrast to the speech in Ferber, speech that is itself the record of sexual abuse, the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not “intrinsically related” to the sexual abuse of children. While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts. The Government’s argument that these indirect harms are sufficient because, as Ferber acknowledged, child pornography rarely can be valuable speech, see id., at 762, suffers from two flaws. First, Ferber’s judgment about child pornography was based upon how it was made, not on what it communicated. The case reaffirmed that where the speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the First Amendment’s protection. See id., at 764—765. Second, Ferber did not hold that child pornography is by definition without value. It recognized some works in this category might have significant value, see id., at 761, but relied on virtual images–the very images prohibited by the CPPA–as an alternative and permissible means of expression, id., at 763. Because Ferber relied on the distinction between actual and virtual child pornography as supporting its holding, it provides no support for a statute that eliminates the distinction and makes the alternative mode criminal as well. Pp. 11—13.

        (3) The Court rejects other arguments offered by the Government to justify the CPPA’s prohibitions. The contention that the CPPA is necessary because pedophiles may use virtual child pornography to seduce children runs afoul of the principle that speech within the rights of adults to hear may not be silenced completely in an attempt to shield children from it. See, e.g., Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 130—131. That the evil in question depends upon the actor’s unlawful conduct, defined as criminal quite apart from any link to the speech in question, establishes that the speech ban is not narrowly drawn. The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles’ appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566, absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct, see, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (per curiam). The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all. Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited. The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612. The Government’s rejoinder that the CPPA should be read not as a prohibition on speech but as a measure shifting the burden to the accused to prove the speech is lawful raises serious constitutional difficulties. The Government misplaces its reliance on §2252A(c), which creates an affirmative defense allowing a defendant to avoid conviction for nonpossession offenses by showing that the materials were produced using only adults and were not otherwise distributed in a manner conveying the impression that they depicted real children. Even if an affirmative defense can save a statute from First Amendment challenge, here the defense is insufficient because it does not apply to possession or to images created by computer imaging, even where the defendant could demonstrate no children were harmed in producing the images. Thus, the defense leaves unprotected a substantial amount of speech not tied to the Government’s interest in distinguishing images produced using real children from virtual ones. Pp. 13—19.

    (b) Section 2256(8)(D) is also substantially overbroad. The Court disagrees with the Government’s view that the only difference between that provision and §2256(8)(B)’s “appears to be” provision is that §2256(8)(D) requires the jury to assess the material at issue in light of the manner in which it is promoted, but that the determination would still depend principally upon the prohibited work’s content. The “conveys the impression” provision requires little judgment about the image’s content; the work must be sexually explicit, but otherwise the content is irrelevant. Even if a film contains no sexually explicit scenes involving minors, it could be treated as child pornography if the title and trailers convey the impression that such scenes will be found in the movie. The determination turns on how the speech is presented, not on what is depicted. The Government’s other arguments in support of the CPPA do not bear on §2256(8)(D). The materials, for instance, are not likely to be confused for child pornography in a criminal trial. Pandering may be relevant, as an evidentiary matter, to the question whether particular materials are obscene. See Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463, 474. Where a defendant engages in the “commercial exploitation” of erotica solely for the sake of prurient appeal, id., at 466, the context created may be relevant to evaluating whether the materials are obscene. Section 2256(8)(D), however, prohibits a substantial amount of speech that falls outside Ginzburg’s rationale. Proscribed material is tainted and unlawful in the hands of all who receive it, though they bear no responsibility for how it was marketed, sold, or described. The statute, furthermore, does not require that the context be part of an effort at “commercial exploitation.” Thus, the CPPA does more than prohibit pandering. It bans possession of material pandered as child pornography by someone earlier in the distribution chain, as well as a sexually explicit film that contains no youthful actors but has been packaged to suggest a prohibited movie. Possession is a crime even when the possessor knows the movie was mislabeled. The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction. Pp. 19—20.

    (c) In light of the foregoing, respondents’ contention that §§2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D) are void for vagueness need not be addressed. P. 21. 198 F.3d 1083, affirmed.

    Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. O’Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., joined as to Part II. Rehnquist, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined except for the paragraph discussing legislative history.

161 posted on 04/16/2002 9:32:35 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mconder
This ruling was the right one, but abuse of the right of free speech will enevible result in restriction of it. If we choose not to obey the higher law, the lower earthly law will have no problem stepping up to play god

Another big bump.

162 posted on 04/16/2002 9:33:26 AM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Tai_Chung
In short, this is the next step toward legalized pedophilia.

No, it's the first step. This is the next step: Mainstream Book Advocating Adult-Child Sex Draws Howls of Protest

163 posted on 04/16/2002 9:33:39 AM PDT by fivecatsandadog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ecomcon
It seems to me, our society has reached a point of critical mass where the splitting (atoms) cannot be moderated.

So true. This culture cannot even stomach the political medicine that would put us back on even the slightest track of moral recovery. Take Charles Pickering, for example.

Political and governmental solutions can no longer handle the rot that is enveloping this society. If grass roots moral reform does not occur soon, I dread to think...

164 posted on 04/16/2002 9:34:23 AM PDT by Egg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
but damn, something is just wrong here, and I cannot put my finger on it.

Well, obviously it's creepy to think of anyone getting their kicks off fake child porn too, even if it doesn't involve an actual child. I think that's what you're feeling.

What is really creepy is the timing of this. This ruling comes out with the Catholic Church pedophile problems as a backdrop. God is telling us something. It's a warning that few will listen to.

165 posted on 04/16/2002 9:36:04 AM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
In the case of cut and paste kiddie porn, the rights of the child has been violated by using his facial or body image without consent, and for which consent cannot be given or obtained. Should pornographers be allowed to pose and photograph children in order to get images that will be easier to photoshop into virtual porn?

The plaintiffs in this case DID NOT challenge, and so the USSC did not consider, the provision in the statute that involves using actual children i.e. the "cut & paste" problem you speak of.

166 posted on 04/16/2002 9:36:08 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Good analysis.
167 posted on 04/16/2002 9:38:21 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Here's the decision

That's the Syllabus, not the Opinion

168 posted on 04/16/2002 9:39:04 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: gdani
That's the Syllabus, not the Opinion.

You're right, sorry. But it's of use.

169 posted on 04/16/2002 9:41:07 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is one thing....looking at pictures of naked kids is NOT SPEECH, it's perversion.
170 posted on 04/16/2002 9:42:13 AM PDT by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Valpal1
It is a product of no social benifit and significant social harm, so outlaw it.

Like smoking? In light of the First Amendment, where in the Constitution do you find the authority for the government to outlaw things that conform to this test of yours?
171 posted on 04/16/2002 9:42:25 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Free speech is like guns or any other dangerous tool and human ability

What is the purpose of virtual child pornography, self defense?

Do you think virtual child pornography will reduce the use and abuse of children because the pedophiles will use and abuse virtual children?

Can my town keep it out of library, out of our store windows and off our bill boards if we so choose?

172 posted on 04/16/2002 9:43:51 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I cannot put my finger on it.

You better not, lest you spend 20 years in prison.

173 posted on 04/16/2002 9:45:58 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Egg
It's possible that their ranks could grow, but not highly probable.

We have a more evil group attempting to group speech into classes, PC,hate,political ads,etc, and limit them in different ways.


174 posted on 04/16/2002 9:46:18 AM PDT by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Ah, the 1st amendment perverted.
175 posted on 04/16/2002 9:46:23 AM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Coppertone tan line!
176 posted on 04/16/2002 9:47:14 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
No like jaywalking and crapping on the sidewalk. My town finds those acts unacceptable acts of speech, ergo we don't allow them.
177 posted on 04/16/2002 9:47:21 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is one thing

You mean FALSELY yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater AND causing a panic (but we knew what you meant).

Other examples of speech that should be outlawed are defamation, libel, etc. Unless you think it's a good idea for your neighbors to label you as, say, a wife-beater when they know it's not true.

178 posted on 04/16/2002 9:48:15 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Yes it will reduce the actual abuse of real children directly.
179 posted on 04/16/2002 9:48:26 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
Ah, but as written, this law did NOT make that distinction.

You are correct in that the law did not distinguish between bona fide child pornography and seemingly innocent pictures of someone's nake kids in the tub. If that were the gist of this ruling, I'd have no problem. What bothers me is that these justices (in the original 9th Circuit) went out of their way to also justify the publishing of "virtual" children engaging in sexual activity.

From the summary text: The Ninth Circuit held the CPPA invalid on its face, finding it to be substantially overbroad because it bans materials that are neither obscene under Miller nor produced by the exploitation of real children as in Ferber.

The effect will be the lack or failure of any new law which would prohibit the publishing of fictitional child pornography.

180 posted on 04/16/2002 9:52:15 AM PDT by Egg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 541-551 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson