Slashdot Mirror
'Virtual' Child Porn Act Ruled Unconstitutional
wiredog writes "The United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, has found the Child Pornography Prevention Act to be unconstitutionally vague and far-reaching." You might read the Act. There were a number of cases challenging the constitutionality of the Act; I believe three Appeals courts eventually upheld it, and one ruled it unconstitutional, guaranteeing that the Supreme Court would take one of the challenges for review. A summary of the decision is available, and see that pages for links to the majority opinion and dissenting opinions.
crime has been committed before you can get a conviction ?
Sure. The point of the (now overturned law) was to turn the act of creating child porn, even simulated, into a crime. Since regular child porn is already illegal, the idea here was to extend it. (For example, photoshopping a child's head onto the picture of a naked grownup would be illegal even though no child was harmed.)
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
This should become part of our lexicon, just like RTFM... If you would take the time to read the article, along with the Court's decision, you would have noticed that the law that was struck down was done so because it was too broad, not because we are trying to protect child molesters/pornographers/pedophiles. The Court struck the law because of the law's ambiguity and too-broad definitions of what is "child pornography".... This was actually a victory for free speech and freedom of expression. Please do not misunderstand me or my posting here; child pornographers/pedophiles should all be eradicated from the face of the earth by the most horrific/painful means possible, but that is not what this is about....
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
Fast Times at Ridgemont High: Jennifer Jason Leigh's character, Stacy, is a minor (17 I believe). Takes off her shirt in the baseball dugout to finally 'do it' with "Ron Johnson". This can hardly be considered child pornography. I believe under this act, it would be. Unless it is on TNT and isn't actually watched by anyone since the censors pretty much took out everything.
If people can use virtual child porn they wont need to use real children, this will protect alot of children.
The point of child pornography laws is to keep the porn industry from exploiting children.
No children are exploited in virtual porn, so it should be legal, its harmless and if anything protects children in the long run.
The arguement people who are against virtual porn will use is "Its bad to feed the perverts any form of child pornography"
problem is, these people will always exsist, and its better for them to get off to fake child porn, than REAL child porn.
Wrong = Exploiting children
However nothing is wrong with virtual child porn or
any other form of expression as long as no one is harmed
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
In the past 6 months /. has featured 2 supreme court decisions, both of which I've written papers on. Here is my take, as a student of the 1st amendment on why you might rule this act constitutional. Now I dont agree with it, but I think this makes for an interesting and informative read.
Background
In the case of Janet Reno v. The Free Speech Coalition et al. we find a traditional confrontation between the expression of U.S. law and the constitutionally protected concept of freedom of speech. The Free Speech Coalition has challenged whether or not Congress has the constitutional authorization to regulate computer-generated images as child pornography. The case has been formed around the contention that two phrases present in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 ("CPPA" or the "Act") are so broad that they infringe on speech that the first amendment protects. Secondarily, the Free Speech Coalition argues that the law has such a chilling effect to freedom of speech that it imposes a prior restraint on the kinds of products the defendants are producing. The Act outlaws images that have been either entirely created using electronic or mechanical means, or images that have been modified by those means. These images only fall under the Act when they either appear to be child pornography, or are marketed as such.
In 1996 a congressional study expressed concern over the growing technical ability to produce adult materials that blurred the lines between protected forms of pornography and child pornography, which is an unprotected form. The study was particularly concerned with the effects that "virtual" child pornography would have on children. These "virtual" images are created by mechanical or electronic means, and may or may not involve the usage of children. In some cases children's faces are superimposed over images of pornography involving consenting adults. In other cases, the images are created without using any children, but rather are created from a computer model of an adolescent.
Congress created the CPPA in response to this concern. Their fact finding committee suggested that such a ban on "virtual" child pornography would advance legitimate government interest in several ways: by protecting children, allowing enforcement of current pornography laws, and undermining the distribution channels that the child pornography trade has been built upon. The congressional committee saw these goals as important enough to warrant the infringement upon certain types of expression.
In light of these concerns the CPPA was specifically targeted to prohibit the creation of pornographic images by electronic or mechanical means. The Free Speech Coalition has built their objection around the language used to meet this goal. The law prohibits any image that "appears to be" of a minor engaging in sexual acts, or is distributed in such a manner that it "conveys the impression" of a minor engaging in sexual acts. For these purposes sexual acts were defined as sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadism/masochism, and lascivious display of genitals. The Free Speech Coalition asserts that this language infringes on their first amendment rights to freedom of expression because of its breadth.
High Value v. Low Value Speech
The court must caution all parties involved to remember the distinction between high-value and low-value speech. Speech is considered of a high value when it is essential to the smooth functioning of our deliberative democracy. Traditionally the First Amendment affords more protection for these types of speech in order to encourage the open dialog essential for preventing a government from becoming oppressive to its people. It is important to note when the first amendment was created the speech that was considered most important to protect uncensored was speech of a political nature. Numerous times through out this Court's history examples can be found of cases where speech was allowed because of the essential political nature of that speech. In the case of The National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) speech that was objectionable was allowed because that speech was of a political nature. In this case it would be impossible to grant that the speech the Free Speech Coalition wishes to protect is political.
In recent years the court has only limited political speech when it met the test of "clear and present danger." Justice Holmes introduced this test in the case of Scheck v. The United States 1919 by saying that political speech must present an immediate danger to the government before restrictions can be placed upon it. The courts reasoning for this has been that speech of a political nature is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. If citizens are not allowed to express their ideas for fear of governmental action, then the government has become oppressive. For this reason the court has a stringent test for when it can regulate a citizens speech.
When cases have come before the court where the speech was not political the test for regulation is less stringent. If speech is not of a political nature then there is less reason for the government to permit it to harm citizens. In cases such as these the court has found that the government has a right to regulate speech in order to pursue its vital interests. The Supreme Court has ruled previously that "[a] content-neutral regulation will be sustained under the First Amendment if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests."
The court has defined low value speech as speech that has no political meaning. This should not be mistaken as grounds for wholesale censorship of speech because the government finds it objectionable. It is important to note this difference in the perceived value of speech. Low-value speech must naturally warrant greater scrutiny than speech of a political nature. Therefore, we must examine the permission of virtual child pornography very carefully. When speech harms or impedes the government's pursuit of its vital interests then more leeway is allowed in restricting that speech. One can plainly see that there are serious legal ramifications to the type of speech that the Free Speech Coalition seeks to protect.
Breadth
To declare a statute as overly broad is a judicial last resort that should only be used in an effort to fix a law that cannot be made constitutional in any other way. Even when the statute being considered does appear to be overly broad the court must consider the whole law. Laws that may seem overly broad at first glance may be found acceptable when considered as a whole. The case that The Free Speech Coalition presents raises objections to several clauses as being overly broad. However, the court holds the opinion that when the whole CPPA is considered all of these clauses are constitutional. There are specific reasons why we must consider each clause to be so.
In the instance of the phrase "appears to be" the statute cannot be seen as overly vague when taken in context of the entire law. Congress included the affirmative defense to resolve the individual conflicts between legitimate protected expression and the law. This section states that if a images "appears to be" of child pornography, but the promoters of that material can prove the participants are of legal age, then the image is exempt from the CPPA . The Act provides an affirmative defense as an escape clause for those that might be prosecuted falsely for producing protected forms of expression. If the expression requires a consensual sexual act between people of the appropriate age, then the affirmative defense provides for the protection of that expression even if it might be considered to fall under the act. In this manner it is important to understand that the affirmative defense is a full defense from the law, providing protection for worthy kinds of expression
The Free Speech Coalition has said that the CPPA violates the ruling in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). They contend that the CPPA takes away the possibility of using someone who "perhaps looks younger" by making images illegal even if they contain adults of a consenting age. This is simply not true. If an image complied with the Ferber ruling then it would be protected by the affirmative defense in the CPPA. If an image portrays a person who looks younger than the age of consent, but the producer or distributor of such an image can prove they are consenting, then there is no conflict with the law.
The phrase "conveys the impression" is indeed a broad one. However, two problems arise if this court rules it overly broad. The first is the historical reluctance of the court to rule a statute overly broad because of the difficulty this would pose to lawmakers at all levels of government. Statutes must be sufficiently focused in order to prevent abuse by governmental authorities in their prosecution. However, they must be constructed broadly enough to attain their ends. Although the court finds great difficulty in striking this balance, it must consider the interests vital to securing the most free and stable state for all of its citizens to enjoy. In this case we must consider the states vital interests in protecting children from sexual predators.
Harm to Children
In recent years it has become trite to express interest in children as America's future. However, in a very legal standpoint a self-interested society must place extra weight on protecting the young for it will be their responsibility to care for the continuation of this country. For that reason one of the states most vital interest is in protecting its children.
In this light it is important to consider the protection of children as a goal that can justify the restriction of speech. Just as a patron must not cry "fire" in a crowded theatre because of the harm it would cause to theatre goers, any speech or expression that can harm children must be restricted. Child pornography has such harm in its expression that it is in the states vital interest to make every effort to eliminate this harm. In this case we are dealing with a law designed to protect children against child pornography.
While this is not a new concept in American jurisprudence, the implementation has a major variation. Previously, laws seeking to protect children against the harms of child pornography have been focused on the "primary" harmful effects of the pornography. Primary effects are best defined as those harms that are the direct result of the child's participation in the making of pornography. These effects include the actual molestation, emotional scarring, and a visual record of the acts that the child participates in. The logic behind previous laws dealing with child pornography is that these effects are so heinous that the government's interest in protecting children far outweighs the rights of the pornographer to produce these types of images. In the CPPA however, we see a shift in the intent of the law to protect children not from these primary effects, but from other, secondary effects.
These secondary effects that the CPPA focuses on are the harms that occur when a child is exposed to child pornography, rather than injured in the production of it. These effects can include sexual predation, desensitization, and forced sexual identity at a young age. These secondary effects have never been directly recognized as justification for the restriction of expression. Since these effects are not directly the result of child pornography their usage as the sole reason for regulation is problematic. However, there is a manner in which these secondary effects are important to consider.
The governments' primary interest in regulating child pornography is the protection of those that are injured in the production of the pornography. All previous laws have focused on what occurs during the making of the pornography. In these cases there are real children that are being harmed and the law is to prevent the harm. To redefine that interest as to protect those that may be injured by exposure marks a much larger shift in ideology.
This shift in ideology is not present if restrictions on distribution are used as a method to halt production. This is an important consideration when viewing Supreme Court rulings as carrying the full force of U. S. law. The tradition of the court has been to rely on precedent and stability. When the court is judicially active it has a tendency to reach beyond normal considerations to grant a higher level or protection than normal. One of the most active stances the court has taken is in Brown v. Board of Education and it took such a stance because of the political nature of the case. In Reno v. The Free Speech Coalition the speech that is being considered is not political. Although there have been periods of judicial activism, this case is not a candidate for such consideration. Therefore, we must look at this case from a distribution standpoint.
Just as with the struggle to contain illicit drugs, the government must win the war against child pornography in the channels of distribution. When defensible images are marketed as child pornography they keep the demand for actual child pornography alive. This leads to the harms inherent in the production of actual child pornography. These harms are the emotional damage to children involved, encouragement in the belief of children as sexual objects, and much higher rates of child molestation. If the viewing of "virtual" child pornography is approved then demand for such images will surely increase. The danger in increasing demand for these kinds of images is that some pornographers will almost certainly resort to using actual children in production and then claiming that the images are protected as being "virtual." When these images are purchased as "virtual" then the laws against real child pornography have been bypassed. In this manner people who would never consider harming a child might inadvertently support those who are abusing children in the production of pornography.
Enforcement of Current Laws
This leads to yet another important idea to consider. The absence of the CPPA will hinder enforcement of the many other child pornography laws, laws whose constitutionality is not in question. In cases where the "virtual" pornography is utterly indistinguishable from that involving real children the lines between permitted and non-permitted speech would be so blurred that they would prevent prosecution of real crimes in the absence of the CPPA. It is quite obvious that the first amendment does not extend protection to those persons harming children in the production of their "expression." However, without a law such as the CPPA the government's burden of proof would become so difficult that it would prevent the enforcement of legitimate laws.
In pursuing the vital interests of protecting children the court must consider the limited infringement on certain types of low-value speech against the vital interests of continuing validity of necessary laws. In this case one can easily see that whatever position is preferred initially, the restrictions placed on expression by the CPPA are neither unreasonable nor unconstitutional. The combination of the many factors that have been, and will be discussed make the decision in the case an easy one. No matter what tradition of preference is used, the CPPA satisfies the need to balance first amendment freedoms with the protection of vital interests.
Prior Restraint
As mentioned earlier, the Free Speech Coalition contends that the CPPA presents a prior restraint on speech. They present the opinion that by regulating images that only represents children, but do not involve them, the government creates a chilling atmosphere for free expression. The idea is that the statute is so broad that since a reasonable person cannot tell if an image falls under the act, then someone who produces images involving children would not be free to express himself for fear of prosecution.
There are, however, several problems with this particular thought. The court can only consider something as prior restraint when the government actively prevents the expression of a particular idea. Self-regulation from fear of prosecution cannot be considered prior restraint. If a person fears government prosecution then they only have to examine the law and their product to determine if it is banned. In the case of the CPPA, if the image does not fall under the definition presented in section 2256 or is protected by the affirmative defense then that speech is permitted. If this is the case then there is no reason to fear governmental action.
The Free Speech Coalition asserts that there is no way for a reasonable person to know whether or not an image falls under the definition of the act. This is simply not the case. In the case of the phrase "appears to be a minor" the test is simple. A perfectly workable test was introduced by a First Circuit Court ruling. The question is "whether an unsuspecting viewer would consider the depiction to be an actual individual under the age of eighteen engaging in sexual activity." In instances such as that the question always arises "What constitutes a reasonable person?" There is no pat definition to this question. The assumption made by the United States Constitution is that the vast majority of persons are indeed reasonable. This can be seen in our system of a trial by a jury of a persons peers. If the citizens of the United States are reasonable enough to determine a persons innocence or guilt in cases of high importance, such as murder, then they are capable of determining if a person appears to be under 18 years of age.
The existence of an affirmative defense also answers the question of prior restraint. If an image can be protected under the affirmative defense then there is no reason for a person to fear prosecution for that image. When these considerations are taken into account then the threat of prior restraint seems much less dangerous. With these understandings, those who produce images that are not prohibited by the CPPA have nothing to fear.
Preferred Positions
In this discussion it is important to note the judicial tradition of preferred positions. The court at various times has preferred certain philosophies of the first amendment to others. Justice Hugo Black preferred the protection of the First Amendment to all others initially. Other justices have given more credence to protecting stability and the rule of law than they have to protecting freedom of speech in all situations. In either ideology, regardless of which is initially preferred the evidence for a compelling state interest is so strong that it overrides any preference for the permission of expression involving "virtual" child pornography. Justice Ferguson expressed this feeling when he stated "Congress' interests in destroying the child pornography market and in preventing the seduction of minors outweigh virtual child pornography's exceedingly modest social value."
This coupled with the fact that such pornography can be used in the seduction of children when marketed as minors is sufficient reason to limit one form of low value expression in the quest to protect children. One large part of the congressional study that proceeded the CPPA was dedicated to the use of pornography by pedophiles. The panel reached the conclusion that "virtual" pornography is just as effective in seducing children as actual pornography. This cuts to the very heart of the debate on secondary effects. Even though "virtual" pornography does not harm children in its production it causes other real harm to children. The Free Speech Coalition has been adamant that computer generated images are victimless, and do not harm children in their creation. They ignore the fact that they harm children in their existence. As with many constitutional issues, a balance must be struck between protection of the rights guaranteed to individuals and the protection of safety for all.
In several instances the Free Speech Coalition raises possibilities where officials who wish to prosecute protected speech might misuse the law. Unfortunately, these cases are not before us now. When these hypothetical cases of abuse by law enforcement arise, then this court will be happy to hear another challenge based on such abuse. Until that time the affirmative defense is sufficient to prevent such abuses.
Other Considerations
There is one warning that I must add to my decision against the Free Speech Coalition. No matter how repugnant it may seem, there is no legal justification for the outlawing of the thought of committing an illegal act with a minor. Such a law would require the creation of an Orwellian Thought Police that the first amendment was specifically designed to protect against. However, it must be clear that such limitation only applies in creations of the mind that commit no actual harm. This case rides the boundaries between regulating thought and ensuring safety for all.
Although the Act is quite valid, the Free Speech Coalition is correct in objecting to regulations that are against "creations of the mind." Although there is no harm to actual children in production, the dangers to children are obvious. Because this harm is so close to that of pornography that does involve children, and it does cause actual harm to actual children, the regulation of computer generated images is permissible. Had these harms not been present, then the court would have found no justification to ban the speech based on content alone.
This is not to say that we have outlawed the thought of sex with minors. If the Free Speech Coalition wanted to produce literature that wrote about sexual activity with minors, and this writing did not cause them actual harm, it would be a different ruling. Simply because a thought is repugnant does not mean that it is illegal. It must be very clear that the First Amendment is being abridged not because of content, but because of harm. The First Amendment is intended to protect speech that is disagreeable to the government, but not to protect speech that causes harm.
Conclusions
The decision to rule against the Free Speech Coalition is a difficult one. While I am concerned with any ruling that restricts freedom of speech, it is difficult to justify overturning the CPPA on the grounds that virtual child pornography should be protected. It is my opinion that the need for freedom of expression does not outweigh the harms that can be caused by the types of expression the Free Speech Coalition seeks protection for. In this case Justice Holmes test of "Clear and present danger" is much too stringent to use when considering restricting "virtual" pornography. While this type of expression does not present an immediate danger to the survival of the United States, its danger to members of our country is sufficient to justify its regulation.
For these reasons I must rule against the Free Speech Coalition.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Unfortunately, a lot of what you are saying is a flawed argument in response to LordNimon.
Someone asked if he was a psychologist to push his expertise.
I'll up it a little. My best friend is a psychiatrist (big distinction between the two) and he would tell you that LordNimon is absolutely correct about taking obsessions to the "next level." He's spoken to me several times about these kind of behaviors. Also, you'll find extremely few dissenting opinions on his answer among the medical community.
There have been plenty of case studies to back this up. I just can't point you in that direction, and my friend is not a
Schools are not laws.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Parents are required by law to send their children to school. (Home-schooling is the exception, and the National Educators' Association is trying to get it outlawed.) School boards pass "regulations" under which teachers are required to report certain offenses to the police. The police are required by law to investigate the complaints. Seems like "law" to me.
But in any case, here's your non-school example:
Laws are supposed to be specific in order to restrict police activity, not to require it.
Nope, no sig
Kind of odd though... nothing illegal about people under 18 having sex in most states
At least in the states I've lived in, there are a number of circumstances under which it's illegal. California in particular has some very strict codes [ca.gov] on underaged sexual activity that do not make allowances even if both parties involved are underaged or near in age. Check your own state's legal code.
this space intentionally left blank
The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles' appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 566, absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct, see, e.g., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (per curiam).
---
Well, there ya go, take the it or leave it.
-- Peter McWilliams, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do
I looked for the original report, but could not find it online. If I do, I'll post the link here.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
That's right, you feel like it would be the opposite because you're not a rapist. No matter how sexually aroused you might be, you're not a violent person, and would never do such a thing. The only reason you'd ever imagine it is because you want sex, not violence. If you can get your sex from porn, that will do nicely for you.
Previous poster still has a totally valid point. For other people, that do have a desire for violence, watching a lot of porn will change their view of what is acceptable behavior. If you begin fucked in the head, porn can absolutely fuck you worse in the head.
Don't get me wrong. I watch porn all the time. I don't think I'm playing with fire at all. I know the difference between fantasy and reality. I was fortunate, though. Nobody ever raped me when I was a kid, so those borders are pretty clear. The people that *did* get molested as children are much more likely to do similar things as adults, and kiddie porn will certainly keep them thinking about it.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
That's not exactly the real significance of the Sharpe case. I'll just fill in the details for the non-Canadian types.
r no graphy.html
This Sharpe guy was, frankly, a really sick bastard. He was charged with posession of child pornography, specifically filmed material and written material. He was found guilty on the charges related to film material, and justifiably so.
The Supreme Court basically found that the simple possession of the material in question was constitutionally protected, so long as the acts depicted in the photographs were not real. Furthermore, they held that the written material, penned by Sharpe himself, had artistic merit and he was consequently protected from prosecution.
As the judge stated, to forbid possession of this material would be one step away from censoring people's thoughts. Much as I hate to contemplate those thoughts, these people have a right to them, and a right to put them on paper. Goes back to not agreeing with what you say, but defending your right to say it.
The following link has some further info on this case.
http://cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/sharpe_po
Your comment about Ted Bundy is not very accurate. True, he did make that claim about pornography as he neared his execution. Most people don't think those comments were particularly sincere, nor are they backed up by the evidence.
I'll tell you what kind of "pornography" Ted Bundy was in to: Pictures of Cheerleaders. Not the raunchy upskirt pictures that got cheervideos.com in trouble, just average everyday pictures of cheerleaders. He had shoeboxes full of this stuff in his car. (I tried to find a link, no luck. I learned this from one of those Discovery channel specials.)
I guess what I took away from this is that Pornography is in the eye of the beholder. I can totally imagine Ted thumbing thru his stack of cheerleader pictures, reliving his attacks or savoring the next one.
Yuck.
As I stated in a previous post (from knowledge based upon the fact that I am, indeed, a psychologist), people who engage in child molestation do so regardless of outside influences. Conversely, pornography - nor the lack thereof - won't turn a human being into a child molestor.
It doesn't matter if you do or don't provide virtual child porn, RealDolls, or what have you. If the person in question isn't a child molestor *then he won't molest* - it's that simple. If he is a child molestor *then he will molest no matter what 'releases' or available*.
Anything else provides an excuse for the molestor (e.g., "if I had virtual porn I wouldn't have raped the kid", or oppositely, "the virtual kiddie porn encouraged me to rape the kid"). This is no different from the frat-boy argument "if she hadn't dressed so slutty/danced with me/whatever then I wouldn't have raped her".
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
My uncle is/was a pedophile. He has never acted upon his feelings, yet he is tortured by them. He goes to counciling weeky. He can not be "cured" because they can't change their feelings. They can just give him medication (decreases testosterone levels, etc), that will prevent him from acting out. Part of his therapy was to look at "non-erotic" pictures of prepubescents. (not child porn, since they can not legally suggest that). Basically soft-core. Naturist photos etc. He tells me what he's going through. He says "imagine herterosexuality was illegal. You were not allowed to act on your desires. You would have to locl yourself inside of a room. Somepeople might get arrested". You know how some people are so socially inept they couldn't get laid if they tried? Well, that's my uncle, but as a pedophile. He doesn't have the chutzpah. But man, does he wish he can.
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
The problem with your studies is that they're done on child molesters, *not* the pedophile population at large. Most pedophiles live quiet lives of never touching children inappropriately, jerking off to the Sears catalogue, and never ever telling anyone that they are attrcted to children.
The people in such studies are very different--they're the ones who have no self-control and molested someone. There's a big difference. You very likely know at least one such pedophile personally, and would never guess his secret proclivities.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
> The play has Juliet as a 12 year old
M 7PNsyjrwC: www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/love-in-the-arts/romeo.ht ml+Romeo+Juliet%27s+age&hl=en&client=googletd maybe bits of it were written before he made the change and not revised?).
Thirteen, nearly fourteen.
"She hath not seen the change of fourteen years;"
"Come Lammas-eve at night shall she be fourteen."
And while Romeo and Juliet don't live to consummate their relationship, her mother says
"Well, think of marriage now: younger than you,
Here in Verona, ladies of esteem,
Are made already mothers: by my count
I was your mother much upon these years
That you are now a maid."
This study guide says she was sixteen in the story Shakespeare adapted:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:QZ
(An
rant