Washington, D.C. — The Supreme Court explored Tuesday whether it could limit the reach of a child pornography law so that it would not apply to legitimate creative expression, vivid adolescent imaginations or innocent e-mails with provocative headings.
The court took up a challenge to a provision of a 2003 federal law that sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting child porn. Opponents have said the law could apply to movies like "Traffic" or "Titanic" that depict adolescent sex.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the provision, saying it makes a crime out of merely talking about illegal images or possessing innocent materials that someone else might believe is pornography.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
There are several Renissance paintings by accepted and respected artist that feature full frontal nudity of depicted children (no doubt painted by actual child models, or a compilation of such) that is still art. Cherubim are commonly depicted as naked children between the ages of 2 and 5. Other pictures depict children ranging from 5 to early puberty. And many pictures of "adults" that are naked are actually of young models that can be as young as 12, but are more commonly in their mid teens between the ages of 14 and 16. Under the strictest observance of the child porn law, this would make Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Rembrandt, and others ranging all the way to Picasso and others of being registered sex offenders in possession of child porn, and even soliciting indecent acts with a minor (paying a young child modeling money to legally model nude). So, we have to accept these as art, or cast them away into some obscure protected vault (or even destroy them) or continue to accept them as what they are. Not as child pornography, but as art.
A sexual deviant that would see these as pornography and seek some sort of stimulation or gratification from it would also find gratification and stimulation of their problem from sources like Wal-Mart flyers that depict children in bathing suits and kid's underwear ads. At what point does our pursuit of decency outweigh our pursuit of common sense?
jonas (anonymous) says…
What's the "Child Porn Challenge?" Is that like a sick version of Double Dare or something? Are we supposed to be lauding this?
Ragingbear (anonymous) says…
There are a few aspects of this bill. One aspect says that you can't make any depiction of a child under the age of 16 (possibly 18) in any state of undress that reveals "private" areas. This would include such thing such as more cartoon-like "art" that would include pornographic comics/magazines or movies that depict someone that looks like an underage child despite the video claiming that they are 18. I have seen an item or two of this type of depiction, and believe me. Some of them are bad. Some of them the "18 year olds" appear to be maybe 5.
However, under other aspects of the bill, anyone that appears to be under 18 would be included. For example, there are certain people that have a disorder where they look like a prepubescent when they are 50. You would not be able to depict them in any form of art that is provacative, including pictures, movies, "love scenes" in television and so-forth.
Under even another part of this bill includes vague language where you can be charged with pornography for pictures of somebody that is 18 or older that looks to possibly be under 18. So you can look at a picture and go "that girl looks to be 17 1/2" and then that artist can be charged with possession of child porn.The vague language and there being few checks and balances in the board that would oversee such actions make it dangerous.
Under even yet another part, the post 18 people depicted in "provocative" pictures or drawings could be interpreted to be the latest Calvin Klein ad, or the store flyer for adult bathing suits and under garments. This is once again due to poor and vague warning.
Yet another aspect would make many family album pictures such as "Baby's first bath" or that adorable picture of your 4 year old playing dress up with Mom's dress would be illegal if you could see any part or portion of any underwear or "private areas". This is already an issue, as many people developing innocent pictures have found themselves being raided on the accusation of child porn.
It's not so much the meaning of the bill, it is the aspect of certain articles of the bill that are the problem.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
NPR did a reading of the Supreme Court's discussions yesterday evening that was rather interesting. They asked a lot of very good questions.
One that made me curious, and interested to find out what they ultimately decide, is a question of whether you have committed a crime if you open an unsolicited e-mail that contains illegal images. From their discussion, it sounded as though the law that has been struck down by the 11th would in fact make you a criminal for the act of opening the e-mail.