'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.

Comments

Know what the law said - EXTREMELY BROAD

[Seth Finkelstein]

For discussion purposes, it's important to be very clear as to the broad scope of the proposed law:

From the decision (emphasis added)

.... but also "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," 2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," 2256(8)(D). Thus, -2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called "virtual child pornography," that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)