Court Strikes Down Virtual Child Porn Law - Beliefnet.com

Court Strikes Down Virtual Child Porn Law

Ruling seeks to clarify First Amendment rights relating to computer-generated images on the web.

BY: Michael Kirkland
UPI Legal Affairs Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Apr 16, 2002 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- The Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a federal law outlawing "virtual" child pornography as "overbroad" and unconstitutional.

The law banned sexual images purporting to be of children, but produced without the use of children. Such images could include actors who appear to be children, or may be completely computer generated without the use of real people.

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 "does more than prohibit pandering (of child pornography)," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in Tuesday's majority opinion. "It prohibits possession of material described, or pandered, as child pornography by someone earlier in the distribution chain. The provision prohibits a sexually explicit film containing no youthful actors, just because it is placed in a box suggesting a prohibited movie. Possession is a crime even when the possessor knows the movie was mislabeled. The First Amendment requires a more precise restriction. For this reason, (a key portion of the law) is substantially overbroad and in violation of the First Amendment."

Three justices dissented to part of the majority opinion.

In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said computer-generated images of child pornography may become so sophisticated that it will be hard to tell "virtual" porn from the real thing.

O'Connor said she would have struck down the part of the law that bans material that "'conveys the impression' that it contains actual-child pornography, but uphold the ban on pornographic depictions that 'appear to be' of minors so long as it is not applied to youthful-adult pornography."

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia also issued partial dissents.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the majority's judgment, but wrote a separate opinion.

The case, which brought Tuesday's ruling, comes from San Francisco and deals in part with computer-generated images that may, or may not, involve real people.

Continued on page 2: »

To comment on this content you must be a registered user:

Sign-Up or Log-In

About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Help

Media Kit

Subscribe

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement
DiggDeliciousNewsvineRedditStumbleTechnoratiFacebook