3 ms·
That is simply not true. There is no American jurisdiction where child pornography is a strict liability crime. On this topic, the Supreme Court has ruled in D
by hannasanarion 5y ago
That is simply not true. There is no American jurisdiction where child pornography is a strict liability crime.
On this topic, the Supreme Court has ruled in Dickerson v US that, in all cases, to avoid First Amendment conflicts, all child pornography statutes must be interpreted with at least a "reckless disregard" standard.
Here is a typical criminal definition, from Minnesota, where a defendant recently tried to argue that the statute was strict liability and therefore unconstitutional, and that argument was rejected by the courts because it is clearly written to require knowledge and intent:
> Subd. 4. Possession prohibited. (a) A person who possesses a pornographic work or a computer disk or computer or other electronic, magnetic, or optical storage system ․ containing a pornographic work, knowing or with reason to know its content and character, is guilty of a felony․
- int_19h 5y agoI tried to look up [Antonio] Dickerson v. US, but I don't see any SCOTUS decision on it, only a certiorari petition. Do you have a reference for the decision?
- hannasanarion 5y agoYep, sorry, Dickerson was an appellant that cited the relevant case law, which is New York v Ferber. Now, Dickerson rightfully lost and it's appropriate that SCOTUS rejected his case because he was involved in child porn production, not posession, so he can't rely on the Ferber precedent. He had the opportunity to ask the underage person in question their age, and chose not to, which would meet the reckless disregard standard anyway.
- int_19h 5y agoI don't see any mention of the reckless disregard standard in the New York v. Ferber decision, either? So far as I can see, it just says that CSAM is outside of the scope of 1A, so long as it's "adequately defined by the applicable state law". Am I missing something in the opinion?