Paul McMasters from the Freedom Forum notes that the Supreme Court did not strike down the whole Child Pornography Prevention Act. He is correct. The CPPA adds three new prohibitions to federal anti-child-porn law. Only two were challenged in this case, and only two were struck down. Specifically, only the first, §2256(8)(B), and the third, §2256(8)(D), were part of the case. (A) -- the old law --and (C) were not. My reading is that both (B) and (C) cover "morphed" child porn, with (C) being more narrow since it says "identifiable minor." The majority notes in passing that (C) is "closer to" the type of law that might be constitutional. See below for the details. -Declan http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sign this pro-therapeutic cloning petition: http://www.franklinsociety.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 16 2002 - 13:47:17 PDT