jjacksonesq
11-11-2007, 04:23 PM
I wanted to bring this to the board’s attention and get reaction to this court case. The court case is Williams v <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.xnations.com/ /><st1:country-region w:st=U.S. </st1:country-region>It is in the U.S. Supreme Court. The article I read can be found at lawyersusaonline.com.
Mr. Williams, the defendant, plead guilty to offering pictures of himself and his toddler daughter in sexual acts on-line. He reserved the right to appeal. In his appeal he argued that the statute was so broad that it could include images that might not depict actual children or might otherwise not be obscene. Mainstream movies such as "Traffic," "Lolita," and "American Beauty" were used as examples of movies that might be caught in federal prosecution. The law in question is the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act 18 U.S.C. 2252.9(a)(3)(B). The law provides that it is a criminal offense for anyone to "advertise, promote, present, distribute, or solicit . . . material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
<O:p
My take on this is that, unfortunately, the defendant, while a scum bag, has it right. The law is overbroad and federal prosecutors could use this law to bring criminal charges against any one who produces a depiction of young love, say Romeo and Juliet, let alone any website that promotes teens engaged in sexual intercourse. I think that the court will invalidate that act. What do you all think?
Mr. Williams, the defendant, plead guilty to offering pictures of himself and his toddler daughter in sexual acts on-line. He reserved the right to appeal. In his appeal he argued that the statute was so broad that it could include images that might not depict actual children or might otherwise not be obscene. Mainstream movies such as "Traffic," "Lolita," and "American Beauty" were used as examples of movies that might be caught in federal prosecution. The law in question is the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act 18 U.S.C. 2252.9(a)(3)(B). The law provides that it is a criminal offense for anyone to "advertise, promote, present, distribute, or solicit . . . material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."
<O:p
My take on this is that, unfortunately, the defendant, while a scum bag, has it right. The law is overbroad and federal prosecutors could use this law to bring criminal charges against any one who produces a depiction of young love, say Romeo and Juliet, let alone any website that promotes teens engaged in sexual intercourse. I think that the court will invalidate that act. What do you all think?