The Supremes
I am of two minds about today's ruling regarding "virtual child porn".
On one hand, I've been very concerned about this case. The statute that was at issue here would've made films where underage people engaged in sexual
relations, like Lolita, Romeo & Juliet, and Traffic illegal, as the Court said today. And if they were illegal, so could a bunch of fanfics I know very well - PG-13 and R rated fics where sexual relations among characters under 18 occured. You probably know the fics I'm talking about - very mainstream ones where teens act like teens. There are fics on FA, ffn, SQ, GT and over a hundred individual sites and Yahoogroups that could've run afoul of this law had it not been overturned.
In sum, the law barred sexually explicit material that "appear(s) to be a minor". A broad reading of the first prong of the test could have applied to stories in textual form, as well as to art and movies.
According to the Supreme Court's ruling today, the Act "prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea -- that of teen-agers engaging in sexual activity -- that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries."
The CPPA, however, extends to images that appear to depict a minor engaging in sexually explicit activity without regard to the Miller requirements. The materials need not appeal to the prurient interest. Any depiction of sexually explicit activity, no matter how it is presented, is proscribed. The CPPA applies to a picture in a psychology manual, as well as a movie depicting the horrors of sexual abuse. It is not necessary, moreover, that the image be patently offensive. Pictures of what appear to be 17-year-olds engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards.
The CNN piece said that the opinion cited several artistically significant instances in which teen-age sex was portrayed, including William Shakespeare's play "Romeo & Juliet," and the recent movies "Traffic" and "American Beauty." I'm sure every person reading this could add another hundred movies, tv shows, songs and books to the list: Fast Times? Forever? Buffy?
On the other hand, though... overbreath is a bad thing to do when making an important law - and here, the statute was definitely overbroad. But the statute also did prevent Very Bad Things from entering the marketplace - things I don't want to describe, much less be faced with. And I do hope that the legislators find some way to create a similar law that only prohibits things which have no socially or artistically redeeming value - there's got to be a way to create a statute that way. I wonder if they will?
On a related note, the following citations goes on the list which currently has various citations from the Campbell case back in the mid-90s, when Justice Souter wrote text and footnotes that included the phrase "bass riffs."
William Shakespeare created the most famous pair of teenage lovers, one of whom is just 13 years of age. See Romeo and Juliet, act I, sc. 2, l. 9 (She hath not seen the change of fourteen years). In the drama, Shakespeare portrays the relationship as something splendid and innocent, but not juvenile. The work has inspired no less than 40 motion pictures, some of which suggest that the teenagers consummated their relationship. E.g., Romeo and Juliet (B. Luhrmann director, 1996).
Mr Luhrmann! You're a citation! And in proper Blue Book form for it, and the R&J one too! Tabitha, isn't this adorable?
On one hand, I've been very concerned about this case. The statute that was at issue here would've made films where underage people engaged in sexual
relations, like Lolita, Romeo & Juliet, and Traffic illegal, as the Court said today. And if they were illegal, so could a bunch of fanfics I know very well - PG-13 and R rated fics where sexual relations among characters under 18 occured. You probably know the fics I'm talking about - very mainstream ones where teens act like teens. There are fics on FA, ffn, SQ, GT and over a hundred individual sites and Yahoogroups that could've run afoul of this law had it not been overturned.
In sum, the law barred sexually explicit material that "appear(s) to be a minor". A broad reading of the first prong of the test could have applied to stories in textual form, as well as to art and movies.
According to the Supreme Court's ruling today, the Act "prohibits speech having serious redeeming value, proscribing the visual depiction of an idea -- that of teen-agers engaging in sexual activity -- that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature for centuries."
The CPPA, however, extends to images that appear to depict a minor engaging in sexually explicit activity without regard to the Miller requirements. The materials need not appeal to the prurient interest. Any depiction of sexually explicit activity, no matter how it is presented, is proscribed. The CPPA applies to a picture in a psychology manual, as well as a movie depicting the horrors of sexual abuse. It is not necessary, moreover, that the image be patently offensive. Pictures of what appear to be 17-year-olds engaging in sexually explicit activity do not in every case contravene community standards.
The CNN piece said that the opinion cited several artistically significant instances in which teen-age sex was portrayed, including William Shakespeare's play "Romeo & Juliet," and the recent movies "Traffic" and "American Beauty." I'm sure every person reading this could add another hundred movies, tv shows, songs and books to the list: Fast Times? Forever? Buffy?
On the other hand, though... overbreath is a bad thing to do when making an important law - and here, the statute was definitely overbroad. But the statute also did prevent Very Bad Things from entering the marketplace - things I don't want to describe, much less be faced with. And I do hope that the legislators find some way to create a similar law that only prohibits things which have no socially or artistically redeeming value - there's got to be a way to create a statute that way. I wonder if they will?
On a related note, the following citations goes on the list which currently has various citations from the Campbell case back in the mid-90s, when Justice Souter wrote text and footnotes that included the phrase "bass riffs."
William Shakespeare created the most famous pair of teenage lovers, one of whom is just 13 years of age. See Romeo and Juliet, act I, sc. 2, l. 9 (She hath not seen the change of fourteen years). In the drama, Shakespeare portrays the relationship as something splendid and innocent, but not juvenile. The work has inspired no less than 40 motion pictures, some of which suggest that the teenagers consummated their relationship. E.g., Romeo and Juliet (B. Luhrmann director, 1996).
Mr Luhrmann! You're a citation! And in proper Blue Book form for it, and the R&J one too! Tabitha, isn't this adorable?