| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
Ready for comments. | | | Historical Background | |
<
< | In Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held that obscene speech does not receive First Amendment protection because obscenity serves no crucial role in the exposition of ideas and has little social value. The Court developed a balancing test that asks: (a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Material that ‘passes’ the Miller test is thus deemed to be obscene and is not afforded First Amendment protection. In 1982, in New York v. Ferber, the Court held that child pornography involving actual children is a category of speech not protected by the Constitution and that such depictions may be prohibited even if they are not obscene. The Court in Osborne v. Ohio criminalized the mere possession of child pornography. | >
> | In Miller v. California, the Supreme Court held that obscene speech does not receive First Amendment protection because obscenity serves no crucial role in the exposition of ideas and has little social value. The Court developed a balancing test that asks: (a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Material that ‘passes’ the Miller test is deemed to be obscene and not afforded First Amendment protection. In 1982, in New York v. Ferber, the Court held that child pornography involving actual children is a category of speech not protected by the Constitution and that such depictions may be prohibited even if they are not obscene. The Court in Osborne v. Ohio criminalized the mere possession of child pornography. | | | In 1996, Congress passed the Child Pornography Prevention Act that criminalized the creation of VCP. Under the CPPA, images that appeared to depict children but do not, including images of youthful-looking adults or images that are computer-generated, were illegal. The CPPA also included a “pandering” provision that stated that any image that has been promoted in a manner that “conveys the impression” that a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct is depicted, is illegal. | |
<
< | The Supreme Court found the CPPA unconstitutional on numerous grounds in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Congress then came up with The PROTECT Act (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today). Built on the same platform as the CPPA, it contains some important distinctions that avoid the Constitutional pitfalls of the CPPA. The Supreme Court found the PROTECT Act to be Constitutional. Justice Scalia reasoned as follows: A statute is facially invalid if it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech. However, because the Court in Miller and Ferber had already proscribed the material involved in the speech – the child pornography - the pandering provision is Constitutional because it targets the “collateral speech”- the pandering which introduces this contraband material into the child pornography distribution network. First Amendment protection only extends to lawful speech; offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection. Scalia points out that VCP which is marketed as VCP will not be proscribed by the PROTECT Act. The Act proscribes only pandering where the intention is to cause another to believe that the material is contraband. As a result, one who creates VCP – even if it is indistinguishable from real child pornography - and markets it as VCP is afforded First Amendment rights. | >
> | The Supreme Court found the CPPA unconstitutional on numerous grounds in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. Congress then came up with The PROTECT Act (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today). Built on the same platform as the CPPA, it contains some important distinctions that avoid the Constitutional pitfalls of the CPPA. The Supreme Court found the PROTECT Act and its pandering provision to be Constitutional because First Amendment protection only extends to lawful speech; offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection. Justice Scalia states that VCP which is marketed as VCP will not be proscribed by the PROTECT Act. The Act proscribes only pandering where the intention is to cause another to believe that the material is contraband. As a result, one who creates VCP – even if it is indistinguishable from real child pornography - and markets it as VCP, is afforded First Amendment rights. | | |
Should It Be Legal to Market VCP As VCP? | |
<
< | Society is repulsed by child pornography. Children are usually the most innocent and defenseless of people; child pornography harms and debases these innocents. The most damage to children occurs in the production of real child pornography. VCP does not damage children in its production because children were quite possibly never involved in its production. Perhaps VCP is beneficial to children by allowing potential producers of real child pornography to instead turn to its legal cousin so as to avoid prosecution? Thus, VCP may decrease cases of sexual abuse by allowing pedophiles to sublimate their desires into a victimless alternative that is not intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. Can the Government cannot restrict this harmless speech? As long as the VCP is not obscene, production is not proscribed under Ferber, nor is possession proscribed under Osborne. Let us examine whether VCP would at least be classified as obscene using the Miller test. | >
> | Society is repulsed by child pornography. Children are usually the most innocent and defenseless of people; child pornography harms and debases these innocents. The most damage to children occurs in the production of real child pornography. VCP does not damage children in its production because children were quite possibly never involved in its production. Perhaps VCP is beneficial to children by allowing potential producers of real child pornography to instead turn to its legal cousin so as to avoid prosecution? Thus, VCP may decrease cases of sexual abuse by allowing pedophiles to sublimate their desires into a victimless alternative that is not intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. Can the Government restrict this harmless speech? As long as the VCP is not obscene, production is not proscribed under Ferber, nor is possession proscribed under Osborne. However, perhaps VCP ought to be obscene and thus illegal under the Miller test? | | |
1. Does the work, applying community standards, appeal to the purient interest? | | | 3. Does the work lack serious value? | |
<
< | The Court in Miller stated that “we do not adopt as a constitutional standard the ‘utterly without redeeming social value’ test.” As far as the Court was concerned, possessing some kind of value was not enough to save a work from being classified as obscene. It is unlikely that computer-generated VCP could ever have any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value given that it is created and traded with pedophiles' interests in mind. In regard to real child pornography, the Court in Ferber stated: “We consider it unlikely that visual depictions of children performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals would often constitute an important and necessary part of a literary performance or scientific or educational work.” It is logical to assume that the same would hold true for VCP. However, even if such images did contain some value, it is unlikely that that value would be enough to afford them First Amendment protection. | >
> | The Court in Miller stated that “we do not adopt as a constitutional standard the ‘utterly without redeeming social value’ test.” As far as the Court was concerned, possessing some kind of value was not enough to save a work from being classified as obscene. It is unlikely that computer-generated VCP could ever have any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value given that it is created and traded with pedophiles' interests in mind. In regard to real child pornography, the Court in Ferber stated: “We consider it unlikely that visual depictions of children performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals would often constitute an important and necessary part of a literary performance or scientific or educational work.” Logically, the same would hold true for VCP. Even if such images did contain some value, it is unlikely that that value would be enough to afford them First Amendment protection. | | |
Conclusion | |
<
< | Real child pornography has been recognized by the courts as the repulsive tool of child molestation that it is. Those violating child pornography laws are subject to stiff penalties. Somehow, VCP has flown under the radar. Although Congress has attempted to equate VCP with real child pornography, the Supreme Court has thwarted Congress’ attempts on two occasions. Although debatable whether or not VCP is as damaging as real child pornography, it would seem to me that VCP is by its very nature obscene. Because VCP seemingly passes the Miller test it ought to be prosecuted as obscenity. | >
> | Real child pornography has been recognized by the courts as the repulsive tool of child molestation that it is. Somehow, VCP has flown under the radar. Although Congress has attempted to equate VCP with real child pornography, the Supreme Court has thwarted Congress’ attempts on two occasions. Although debatable whether or not VCP is as damaging as real child pornography, I believe that VCP is by its very nature obscene. Because VCP seemingly passes the Miller test, it ought to be prosecuted as obscenity. | | | -- DavidMehl - 15 Apr 2010 |
|