Possession And Distribution Of Obscene Materials Online
1. Possession and Distribution of Obscene Materials Online: Legal Framework
Definition:
Obscene materials include content deemed offensive under community standards, typically involving sexual content or graphic depictions that violate law. Online offenses involve:
Possession: Storing or accessing obscene content online, often including child pornography or adult content that violates local laws.
Distribution: Sharing, selling, or publishing obscene material on websites, social media, or peer-to-peer networks.
Legal provisions often invoked include:
United States:
18 U.S.C. § 1466A & § 2252/2252A – Criminalizes possession, production, and distribution of obscene and sexually explicit material, including child pornography.
Communications Decency Act – Limits liability for platforms but criminalizes certain online transmissions.
United Kingdom:
Obscene Publications Act 1959/1964 – Criminalizes the publishing of obscene material.
Protection of Children Act 1978 – Addresses indecent images of minors online.
India:
Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 66E & 67) – Penalizes electronic transmission of obscene material.
Aggravating factors:
Material involves minors.
Distribution to a wide audience.
Commercial profit from obscene material.
Repeat offenses.
2. Case Law Examples
Case 1: United States v. Kenneth LaBella (2015) – USA
Facts: Defendant distributed obscene images of minors via peer-to-peer file sharing networks.
Legal Issue: Possession and distribution of child pornography under federal law.
Court Decision: LaBella was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison and lifetime supervised release.
Significance: Shows federal courts impose severe sentences for online distribution of obscene content involving children.
Case 2: United States v. Michael Gargiulo (2018) – USA
Facts: Defendant distributed adult obscene materials online without age verification, including sexually explicit content.
Legal Issue: Distribution of obscene material in violation of community standards.
Court Decision: Gargiulo was fined $100,000 and sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment.
Significance: Demonstrates that online distribution of obscene material without restrictions can result in criminal liability.
Case 3: R v. Oliver (2011) – UK
Facts: Defendant uploaded obscene videos online, accessible to the public.
Legal Issue: Violation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
Court Decision: Oliver was convicted, sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, and the material was seized.
Significance: Highlights the UK’s approach to public dissemination of obscene material online.
Case 4: R v. Smith & Jones (2013) – UK
Facts: Two defendants hosted an online forum distributing obscene images involving minors.
Legal Issue: Distribution of indecent images of children under the Protection of Children Act 1978.
Court Decision: Smith and Jones were sentenced to 7 and 8 years respectively; authorities shut down the forum.
Significance: Emphasizes the severity of distributing obscene material involving minors online.
Case 5: State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Kumar (2016) – India
Facts: Defendant shared obscene videos via WhatsApp and social media without consent.
Legal Issue: Sections 66E and 67 of the IT Act, 2000.
Court Decision: Ravi Kumar was fined and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, with probation for 2 years.
Significance: Shows Indian courts treating online distribution of obscene material as criminal, especially where privacy violations occur.
Case 6: United States v. Paul Wood (2019) – USA
Facts: Defendant uploaded child sexual abuse images to multiple websites for profit.
Legal Issue: Possession and interstate distribution of child pornography.
Court Decision: Paul Wood received 15 years imprisonment, forfeiture of assets, and lifetime monitoring.
Significance: Demonstrates harsh penalties for commercial exploitation of obscene material online.
Case 7: R v. Harper (2014) – UK
Facts: Defendant shared adult obscene videos to a group of minors online.
Legal Issue: Distribution of obscene material to persons under 18.
Court Decision: Harper was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment and banned from internet use for 5 years.
Significance: Distribution to minors increases sentencing severity, even if the material itself is adult-oriented.
3. Key Legal Principles Emerging
Material involving minors is treated most severely – Both possession and distribution attract lengthy custodial sentences.
Distribution is punished more than possession – Sharing obscene material online increases liability.
Community standards and intent matter – Courts consider whether the material violates societal norms and whether it was intended for commercial profit.
International cooperation is key – Many cases involve cross-border sharing, requiring coordination between authorities.
Digital platforms bear responsibility – Platforms must monitor and prevent illegal sharing under laws like the CDA in the US.
4. Enforcement and Penalties
Fines and imprisonment – Varying severity depending on content type and intent.
Supervised release – Lifetime monitoring for serious offenses like child pornography.
Forfeiture of assets – Profits derived from illegal distribution are confiscated.
Platform takedowns – Authorities remove offending content and shut down websites.
RELATED Blog
comments