From: Juergen Fiedler (juergen@fiedlerfamily.net)
Date: Wed Jul 12 2006 - 11:01:19 EDT
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:23:58PM -0800, Eliah Kagan wrote:
> The question is, does this cover adults engaging in sexually explicit
> activity and made to look like minors, or does it merely (and rightly)
> criminalize having actual children who are not engaging in sexually
> explicit activity being made to *look* as though they are?
>
> I seem to recall a supreme court case that touched on this, but I
> could be wrong and I don't quite remember the ruling--if I manage to
> be less busy in the next couple days, I'll look for it.
You are probably thinking of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-795).
The Wikipedia article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#Simulated that links to
this case gives a quick (and, as far as I can tell, correct) rundown
of the laws concerning simulated child pornography in different
countries. Surprisingly enough, unless Ashcroft v. FSC has been
overthrown since, the pertinent laws in the USA seem to be
considerably more lax than the laws in most other countries.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:56:15 EDT