IP: Law on fake child porn upheld

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

For copyright reasons I have shown excerpts


Law on fake child porn upheld 
By Courtney Macavinta
August 12, 1997, 5:40 p.m. PT 


SAN FRANCISCO--A federal judge here today upheld the Child Pornography Act, 
which makes it a felony to create images depicting "simulated" sex with 
minors using a computer.


Rebuking claims that the law was overly broad and in violation of the First 
Amendment, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti ruled that Congress has a 
constitutional right to ban "fake" child porn. 


"For even if no children are involved in the production of sexually explicit 
materials," he stated, "the devastating secondary effect that such materials 
have on society and the well-being of children merits the regulation of such 
images."


...


The Free Speech Coalition, which has gained the support of the American 
Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation, sued to overturn 
the law on grounds that it infringed on the right to free speech.


...


"The First Amendment allows regulation of the time, place, and manner of 
speech; this is known as content-neutral regulation. The judge has said this 
is a content-neutral law and therefore constitutional," said Drew Trott, a 
San Francisco attorney who worked on the case on behalf of the Free Speech 
Coalition.


...


Opponents in the case argued that the law was too broad because, for 
example, it could be a violation of the law to ship a picture across the Net 
of Madonna's naked body with a young Marsha Brady's face imposed onto it. It 
could also be federal crime to upload an adult video that has actors who are 
playing adolescent characters, such as cheerleaders.


The Justice Department argued the goal of the law was not to stifle the 
distribution of rated feature films or artwork but to curb the proliferation 
of child pornography generated or sent via computers. Although child porn is 
already illegal, make-believe materials "incite the same reaction in 
pedophiles," according to the government. 


...


But those who fought the law see that argument abused, they say. For 
example, the ACLU is suing the Oklahoma City police for its June raid of 
video rental stores and homes to seize copies of the Academy Award-winning 
1979 German movie, The Tin Drum. 


Police reportedly took action after Oklahomans for Children and Families 
complained that the film had at least three pornographic scenes containing 
children. The ACLU charges that the raids were illegal, that the film 
doesn't contain child pornography, and that it was never marketed as a 
pornographic picture.