Supreme Court Says Telling People You Have Child Porn Is Illegal... Even If You Don't Have It
from the something-doesn't-seem-right-there dept
I certainly have absolutely no problem with the government going after folks involved in child pornography. However, they shouldn't stretch the laws so far as to make it ridiculous. Unfortunately, however, it looks like the Supreme Court is allowing them to do so. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court okayed a law that makes it illegal to simply try to convince someone else that child pornography is available -- even if it is not. That is, merely telling someone that there is child pornography at a certain link could be considered illegal. Two justices dissented, but seven said the law was fine. The lower court seemed to have it right, noting how problematic it was that this law would apply to "any promoter -- be they a braggart, exaggerator, or outright liar -- who claims to have illegal pornography." However, the justices, led by Justice Scalia, seem to say that the law would only be used in cases where it made sense. Of course, given how often we see laws twisted beyond their original purpose, this seems difficult to believe.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: child porn, supreme court
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
speaking of problematic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.custompcmax.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
child porn is kind of a running joke there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are already laws that prevent that, mostly dealing with false advertising, misrepresentation, etc. The problem is that we are getting so wrapped up in the fact it's child related, that we are losing the point that it's an illegal product. Period. If someone actually HAS an illegal product, then they should be arrested. If someone says they have an illegal product, either as a joke, or as a ploy, they should be investigated, but not charged with "saying you committed a crime". That's absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Applying this precedent elsewhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The beginning of the end.
I agree that child pornography is distasteful and inherently wrong, but to imply that one could not even joke about it is un-American. Unfortunately, with the public so one-sided about this topic, it is forcing politicians to make bad decisions. In my own neigborhood, people are getting arrested because they are downloading regular porn, and some of them were questionable. We are talking about porn stars that are borderline of age. The person viewing the material has no way of knowing they are underage.
In addition, there are many folks that are labeled every day from this type of problem, and they are not given a chance to re-integrate into society after they have done their time because of the sexual offender registries that are now pretty much standard in all states. These people that may, or may not, have learned their lessons are being forced to move into practicaly penile colonies because they cannot be within a certain distance of "places where children congregate." If anyone were to bring up a map, one would find out that this leaves almost no room in any city or town. Then we have to figure out what to do with them. Many turn to the shadows and completely dissappear (probably taking on an alternate identity). Now we have NO track of them whatsoever.
This problem has become far to much like the salem witch trials of the past. If some sick person decides to become a sexual "predator," actually seeking children out, then they should burn. If he decides to take dirty pictures of kids, then make him pay. If some guy gets off by downloading lewd pics of a 17-year-old (which most of these come from countries where the legal age is 14+), then leave the guy alone. He doesn't have a victim.
Man, it just burns me when I see the supreme court messing with peoples rights... Sorry to go off there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The beginning of the end.
Some of them would be happy to live in a penile colony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What if?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole concept is flawed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The whole concept is flawed
> act in progress necessary?
Even nudity isn't required. The federal law makes it a crime to even take pictures of fully-clothed minors who are out in public if the intent is to sexually gratify.
So if one guy takes a picture of the cheerleading squad at a junior-high football game because his daughter is one of the members, that's okay, but the guy next to him who takes the exact same picture is committing a crime if he does it because he thinks the girls are hot.
It's all very Orwellian.
But hey, if it protects the children, then nothing is too extreme, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, wouldn't a law like this remove some possible options of capturing pedophiles? And from another viewpoint, what possible *use* would this have? You could argue that implementing it may not have huge problems, but it has literally no use, other than possibly increasing the amount of time the authorities have to waste chasing down people who are now considered to be criminals, even though they're just having fun in poor taste.
Is there a huge problem of people pretending to be pedophiles wasting taxpayer money that I'm just not aware of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This can then be twisted to mean:
'X' is something, anything. eg: a gun, a type of plant, an exotic animal, maybe even a book.
If 'X' is illegal, It's illegal to claim that I have 'X'. If it's illegal to claim you own something illegal, is it then also illegal to claim that something illegal should be made legal?
While I do not disagree that it should be illegal in this case, people should still have the right to say it should be legalized. No matter how much we disagree with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wasting taxpayer money;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't do that, but that was the first thing I thought of. I've seen others do that, put a bunch of keywords that have nothing to do with the video, just to get better hits on the searches...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the law?
Child porn and pedophilia is f**ked up, but they always go about things the wrong way. Education, educating children, and harsh prosecution of actual criminals is the way to combat this. (Actual, as in teens screwing other teens and getting labeled pedophiles, and thousands of other false cases of pedophilia labeling)
Just the government doing it's job once again to do nothing to get the job done while screwing things up more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the law?
No, they're exempt. In fact, I once read many years ago (before the internet) that federal law enforcement, acting through various "sting" operations, was actually the biggest distributor of kiddy porn in the US.
I also remember reading the federal law against possession of child pornography and noting that Congress exempted themselves too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
after all google is pointing were it is.
and the man told us how to find it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if I Rat someone out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this apply to the cops too?
How about MSNBC and it's "creep of the week" show, where they lure in the degenerates with false chat room conversations?
Now THAT would be entertaining!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I joke with my friends I'm going to rob a bank to pay off my bills, thats not illegal. I spend a day putting together tools and plans to rob said bank, not its illegal.
In this articles situation, if I were to conjecture the statement: "there is child porn on this internet", I'd be breaking the law.
Kind of skirted real close to it right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> still be charged for conspiracy.
No, you can't be charged with conspiracy, unless you plan to rob the bank WITH someone else. Conspiracy requires two or more persons. You can't legally conspire with yourself.
Also, the crime of conspiracy requires more than just planning. It requires an affirmative step be taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. So you can plan your robbery all you want but it doesn't become a crime until you, for example, you buy the tools or conduct surveillance on the target, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #14 AC
My first thoughts went to "great, now cops will have a harder time catching criminals".
Seriously, as others have mentioned, police use the honeypot tactics .. which are now illegal.
Great move justices, you idiots.
Horrible stretch of the law that, as much as I hate to say it, appears to be erroding our free speech rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re #14 AC
Great move justices, you idiots."
No, it's not. As mentioned above, the police are exempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While the law may be incredibly stupid, it may not be unconstitutional, in which case the Court can't do much about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> unconstitutional, in which case the Court can't do much
> about it.
In this case, it clearly is unconstitutional and the Court could very well have done something about it but the Court tends to look the other way when constitutional violations support the members' political agendas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what if...
This could mean that a 13 year old girl could end up in jail and become a registered sex offender just for doing this in private and just mentioning it once to someone online. It's already ridiculous that children can get arrested for publishing themselves nude on the Internet but this would even be worse.
Of course, children who publish themselves nude on the Internet are a danger to themselves but they should not be treated as criminals. They just need some psychiatric support or whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But what if...
Welcome to the witch-hunt: "You're a terrorist!" and "You're a pedophile!" are the 2 most effective phrases at attacking someone you don't like in today's society, just as "communist" was in the 50s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But what if...
The law defines the age of the folks in the images, not who they are or who owns them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But what if...
Come to think of it, the video I took in the delivery room of my daughter's birth is probably illegal too (the little buggers come out butt-naked, wouldn't ya know it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: But what if...
Sex acts are being committed, cameras focused on genitalia, etc..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But what if...
Sex acts are being committed, cameras focused on genitalia, etc..
So, it's OK if the camera has poor quality focus (like most disposables and camera phones)? That seems strange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this bad?
Using child porn as an advertising technique is pretty low for any company, even if they don't actually have it.
There have been numerous cases in which websites have been gone after for accosting convicted child predators with ads and trials and in the end actually causing the people to revert to their sick tendencies.
Is it really horrible if this possibility is stopped?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this bad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is this bad?
It is a shame that we have a collection of Supreme Court Justices who want a particular outcome (= penalties for people with anything to do with child porn) and simply assume that prosecutors will not misuse a poorly written law as a justification for reversing the lower Court's decision. True irony will be if the law is eventually abused and SCOTUS needs to revisit their decision...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Crime --> Crime
Even if you can prove they are over 18, by suggesting that they are under 18 you have committed a crime under this law.
No minors were exploited or harmed, but you no longer have a right to free speech. And the Supreme Court has no problem with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This law is way to easy to be manipulated.
M
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
effects?
and the riaa will love it.. oh you meantioned how to rip a dvd, or told someone where to get the info... clink
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honey pots and entrapment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But honeypots are OK
Just guessing this is how it will work anyhow. If they are saying they will only apply the law when child porn is involved then a friendly honeypot from our boys in blue would never fall into that gray area and so I'm sure it will never be enforced there.
IMO it's much too broad, filled with room for deception and requires too high a level of trust of those that work in those gray areas to not abuse or mis-apply the law. If it's illegal then it should "always" apply. If it's only wrong when convenient then it seems to be infringing on free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By how it can be abused
I see all sorts of ways for this particular law to be severely abused.. which makes it, in my opinion, a bad law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coming up next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have kiddy porn!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have kiddy porn!
Is that post illegal?
Is it illegal for me to point out the post?
Is it illegal for me to respond to this post?
Would it be illegal for me to post a link to this article now?
How about not reporting it?
Will Mike have to delete it when he sees it?
Is it a rickroll?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
first step
Once that law passes, they can use it to pass similiar laws. Next comes the illegal to link to or claim to have drugs, copyrighted music, etc.
If you want your law to pass, say it somehow stops child porn.
If you really want to stop child porn, do something about all the myspace kiddies posting 1/2 naked pictures of themselves and take webcams away from all the kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My kid and pictures
When I was growing up, my mom would take pictures of me wearing costumes or just running around naked (I hated clothes). Nothing deviant, just me playing a video game naked or me wearing my grandfathers coat and nothing else, etc. She often, in gleeful delight, used to pull the pictures out to show girls I brought home to meet the family. All in good fun of course and while embarrassing, I didn't mind that much (epically since she already saw the grown up version before then).
I take pictures of my kid (who also hates clothes). I intend to also pull them out when his girlfriend (or boyfriend) is brought over to continue the cycle of embarrassment. I also think they are cute and not sexual in any way.
Do I own child porn? What is the definition of Porn legally?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My kid and pictures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My kid and pictures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My kid and pictures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if you know they have child porn on their computer, you obviously viewed it, so the police would probably consider you guilty as well. I know, that seems pretty twisted, but people have been arrested for posession of CP for trying to turn it over to the authorities.
You have to understand that CP today is a full-blown witch-hunt, where even the slightest accusation is enough to ruin someone's life. All common sense goes out the window when the authorities think they're dealing with CP. American law may state that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but with CP charges, it's pretty much the other way around.
Where did you get this ridiculous idea that the law (any law) applies to cops?
I'll grudgingly agree with the putting themselves in danger part, but why would they need psychiatric support?
It depends entirely on whether some uptight prosecutor and/or judge thinks that someone, somewhere, might get turned on by looking at the pictures of your son. Or if they think that you might get turned on by looking at them. Or that you took them for the purpose of selling them so that others could get turned on by looking at them.
In today's America, child porn is any image of a child, or that appears to be of a child, that someone in authority judges to be "inappropriate" according to their own personal standards. And when that happens, they will go after the person in question like a rabid pitbull regardless of the truth.
Several years ago, I read a news story about a female artist charged with creating child pornography for painting a portrait of her young daughter. The girl was wearing a formal dress and sitting on a stool with her hands in her lap. I'm sure you can see the problem, right? No? The girl was MASTURBATING!!! At least that's what one uptight viewer thought after looking at the painting. They were apparently able to convince the authorities enough that the artist was investigated for creating child porn, child endangerment, etc. I'm pretty sure that all the charges were dropped, but not before Child Protective Services temporarily took the girl away from her mother, "for her own safety".
I tried searching for a link to it, but stupid Google keeps giving me porn matches instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supreme Court/ cild porn;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: potential for abuse.
It's as if the right-wing extremists of this country plan to abuse every law they advocate because they pig-headedly insist that every law must be written so vaguely and broadly as to produce room for abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to stop child porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]