Obscenity Prosecutions Involving Minors
Overview: Obscenity and Minors
What is Obscenity?
Obscenity refers to material that meets a legal test (established by the Supreme Court) and is considered offensive, lacking serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Miller Test (from Miller v. California, 1973) defines obscenity.
Why Focus on Minors?
Obscenity involving minors—especially in production, distribution, or possession of sexually explicit materials—raises serious criminal liability. It often intersects with child pornography laws and is aggressively prosecuted.
Legal Background
18 U.S.C. §§ 1460–1466 — Federal laws on obscenity and materials involving minors.
18 U.S.C. § 2251 — Sexual exploitation of minors (production of child pornography).
Miller Test (Miller v. California, 1973) — Defines obscenity standards.
State laws often add layers of protection and penalties.
Case Law: Detailed Examples
1. United States v. Dost (1986)
Court: 9th Circuit
Facts:
This case established the "Dost factors" used to assess whether images involving minors are sexually explicit and obscene.
Outcome:
Set guidelines for courts in evaluating obscenity related to minors.
Significance:
Critical framework used nationwide for obscenity involving children.
2. New York v. Ferber (1982)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Ferber was convicted for selling films depicting minors engaged in sexual conduct.
Outcome:
Supreme Court upheld conviction, ruling that child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment, even if not obscene by Miller Test.
Significance:
Allowed states to prohibit child sexual exploitation without First Amendment protection.
3. United States v. Williams (2008)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Facts:
Williams was charged with promoting "pandering" material believed to be child pornography.
Outcome:
Court upheld the law criminalizing promoting child pornography, even when actual images didn’t exist, protecting minors.
Significance:
Expanded prosecutorial reach for obscenity involving minors.
4. United States v. Brown (2013)
Court: 11th Circuit
Facts:
Brown was charged for distributing obscene materials involving minors via the internet.
Outcome:
Convicted; court upheld that distributing obscene materials involving minors is punishable.
Significance:
Confirmed internet distribution is treated equally under obscenity laws.
5. People v. Golb (2010)
Court: New York State
Facts:
Golb distributed obscene emails with images of minors to intimidate victims.
Outcome:
Convicted under obscenity and harassment laws.
Significance:
Shows obscenity prosecutions can include harassment through obscene materials involving minors.
6. United States v. Handley (2012)
Court: 6th Circuit
Facts:
Handley produced and distributed graphic images involving minors; contested the application of obscenity laws.
Outcome:
Convicted; court applied Miller Test and child exploitation standards.
Significance:
Reinforced dual standards: obscenity and child pornography laws overlap but have distinct criteria.
Summary of Legal Principles
Obscenity with minors often overlaps with child pornography laws, but not all obscene materials qualify as child pornography.
Miller Test guides obscenity, while Ferber protects child pornography prosecutions even if not obscene.
Internet distribution and digital materials are fully subject to these laws.
Prosecutors focus on intent to exploit or harm minors through material.
Penalties are severe: prison terms, fines, and lifetime registration for sex offenders.
RELATED Blog
0 comments