MetaFilter posts tagged with pornography and law

Handley pleads guilty

Shepherd — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:52:51 -0800

Christopher Handley has pleaded guilty to Possessing Obscene Visual Representations of the Sexual Abuse of Children. He faces a maximum of 15 years in prison, a maximum fine of $250,000, and a three-year term of supervised release. What Handey was arrested for was not child pornography, however, but Japanese Manga. Previously on MetaFilter. As has been pointed out (NSFW, and previously), there is no shortage of popular comics material that could carry this same penalty currently in circulation. The CBLDF has gotten involved, but to no apparent avail; the plea and its potential consequences have sent shockwaves through the manga and anime communities. At Newsarama, Jeff Trexler explains the finer points of the law and why this case is not likely to be precedent-setting.

One man's extreme...

Grrlscout — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:37:02 -0800

Extreme pornography illegal in Britain since Monday, 26 January, thanks to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. Aside from changes to custodial sentencing guidelines (and early release guidelines to ease overcrowding), the most controversial aspect of the law relates to the legal definition of extreme pornography. An image is deemed to be extreme if it "is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and "it portrays in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following (a) an act which threatens a person’s life, (b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals (c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse (d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive) BDSM groups, among others, have campaigned and protested against the law. Aside from concerns about the legality of kink, some have pointed out that some comics and graphic novels would also fall afoul of the new law.

Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act

East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:44:40 -0800

Yesterday, the US House passed the SAFE Act. No, not that one. Points of note:
- If signed into law, the SAFE Act will require people offering WiFi at their cafe, library, or even allowing their neighbours to use it, who notice that someone appears to have viewed certain dirty cartoons, or pictures of fully-clothed children looking sexy, to immediately make a comprehensive report to John Walsh's CyberTipLine, and retain the images, or face a fine of up to $150,000.
- ISPs or email services have the same obligations, and must store all data relating to the user's account, to be handed over to the authorities.
- The Democrats rushed the legislation through using a mechanism intended for non-controversial legislation. There was no hearing or committee vote. The legislation changed significantly before the vote and was not available for public review.
- The bill passed 409-2. Opposed were Paul Broun (R-Georgia) and Ron Paul (R-Texas). The Senate is next, so consider telling them what you think.

"Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved."

brundlefly — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:24:44 -0800

Teens convicted of producing and possessing child pornography for taking pictures of themselves. [via]

The war on pornography

homunculus — Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:29:32 -0800

John Ashcroft's Patriot Games. An interesting article from last month's Vanity Fair on Ashcroft and his revolution inside the Justice Department. Now the Justice Department wants to wage a war on porn, and "are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains." [Via Boing Boing and Instapundit.]

www.constitutionalsluts.com?

Bag Man — Fri, 07 Mar 2003 08:07:55 -0800

I believe this is a blow for the First Amendment. Today, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Child Online Protection Act. Also, read COPA's report online. In related news, the Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments regarding a law which requires "filters" to be placed on public library computers. Can any of these laws be written to satisfy constitutional requirements? Julie Hilden of Findlaw.con has already contemplated this issue. Will the U.S. follow Canada's lead by enacting similar anti-porn laws? Despite support in the U.S. for such laws, the Indianapolis model pornography law was struck down as unconstitutional nearly ten years ago. It seems even Canada is rejecting the Dworkin/MacKinnon point of view. Is there any middle ground in this showdown of liberty and equality? Which value should prevail? Are these values really at odds with each other?

soulhuntre — Tue, 11 Dec 2001 10:53:42 -0800

Fighting the CDA : The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is working with one of nations most interesting erotic photographers to overturn the portion of the CDA that ties all internet obscenity to the most restrictive definition of the most restrictive community in the nation.

pooldemon — Thu, 29 Nov 2001 06:21:24 -0800

Congress is legislating free speech on the internet again. Passed shortly after the Communications Decency Act was thrown out by the Supreme Court, the Child Online Protection Act isn't as broad as the CDA but does it still go too far in an effort to protect children? Shouldn't parents be responsible for their own children?

argybarg — Tue, 24 Jul 2001 23:10:11 -0800

Man goes to jail for writing pornographic thoughts about children in his journal. Read carefully and you'll notice he was on probation. Even so -- doesn't this go too far? Yes, says Philip Jenkins over at nerve.com. (Found on A & L Daily.)