3 ms·
Clicking on a page linked in your article, the PROTECT Act of 2003[1] (passed a year later), I see: > The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against obscene ill
by arijun 3mo ago
Clicking on a page linked in your article, the PROTECT Act of 2003[1] (passed a year later), I see:
> The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against obscene illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. Previous provisions outlawing virtual child pornography... had been ruled unconstitutional... The PROTECT ACT attached an obscenity requirement under the Miller test or the variant test noted above to overcome this limitation.
Which, if I'm reading it right, means that GP was correct in saying "conviction of CSAM-related crimes do not require any physical act to have ever occurred to any real person"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
- Manuel_D 3mo agoBut crucially: > However, the court did not reverse its holding in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as to virtual child pornography which is not obscene under the Miller standard
- Exoristos 3mo ago> virtual child pornography which is not obscene Does it surprise anyone else that this is a legal possibility?
- rootusrootus 3mo agoI get a little twitchy anytime we have laws based on something like obscenity, which is by definition a moral judgement.
- inigyou 3mo agoIt isn't possible, it's a fig leaf to avoid the law being ruled unconstitutional, but doesn't change the law itself.
- arijun 3mo agoUnless I’m misunderstanding it wrong, any kind of porn would pass the first two prongs of the Miller test: it’s for purient purposes and it has depictions of sexual acts. As for the third prong, I’m sure some porn out there has literary merit, but I would guess the vast, vast majority would not.