The NYT summary of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the case striking down the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9A04E1DA1F3CF934A25757C0A9649C8B63
An aticle on the relatively recent state of digitized child prn.:
http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/cppa1.htm
A key sentence:
Note that the PROTECT Act does not seek to resurrect the misdirected ban on material that is suggestive of child sexuality without any actual displays of child sex (again, think of such literature as Romeo and Juliet, dealing with the romance of youth). The 11th Circuit was unpersuaded of this cure, and in U.S. v. Michael Williams, the court struct down Section 2252A(a)(3)(B).
My guess is that in a conflict between Free Speech Coalition (the S.Ct Ccase) and the PROTECT Act, the S.Ct case would geberally win, but this isn't my speciality.
--- John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> > Your guess about what Congress would be willing to
> do
> > was correct, but two or so session ago the Supreme
> > Court struck down as unsonstitutional federal laws
> > criminalizing virtual child porn. If it's not real
> > people or based on real people, if it's anime or
> > cartoons or looks real but it's just digitized, it
>
> > can't be criminalized. With real people you need
> to
> > post a certificate attesting that your actors are
> all
> > over 18, which takes out a lot of classic porn for
> > which no such certificates are available -- actors
> > long gone, ashamed to certify, etc.
> >
>
> I have seen conflicting information on what exactly
> reconstitutes legal
> and illegal images.
> I have been told that completely digitized images
> depicting minors
> explicitly is legal but morphed images are still
> illegal.
> You can create a "virtual porn child" legally but
> you cannot take a
> legal porn image and graft a child's face to it.
> The SC ruling was in 2002, overturning the 1996
> legislation I believe.
> Is this correct or are morphed images legal? I have
> also heard that cut
> and paste and/or morphed images are legal.
> I try to keep up on relevant art issues but, not
> being in the porn
> business, the exact legalities have escaped me in
> this instance so maybe
> someone here can enlighten me.
>
> It is impossible to differentiate between a 100%
> synthetically created
> human image and an organically generated one. I know
> many people think
> they can do so with great accuracy but AFAIK no
> person or computer
> program has demonstrated a <15% error rate. For some
> strangely arrogant
> reason I feel I could probably do so with a <5%
> error rate.
> This sounds like it means that unless the actual
> child used in an image
> can be found defendants can claim the images to be
> computer generated.
> The burden to prove the images are computer
> generated shouldn't fall on
> the accused should it? This sounds like it gives too
> much room for
> purveyors of child porn images to maneuver within
> for it to be accurate.
> I can't see legislators being this "lax".
> I guess I should note that my use of the phrase "too
> much room to
> maneuver" is not an expression of a personal opinion
> on the current
> state as I understand it but rather an expression of
> what I perceive
> would be currently allowed by legislators and
> society. Hopefully my
> gibberish is understandable.
>
> John Thornton
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222