A Virginia judge dismissed the obscenity case against the books A Court of Mist and Fury and Gender Queer, finding that the law was unconstitutional as prior restraint, that it had insufficient knowledge requirement, and there was insufficient notice.
H.B. 691 and H.B. 1027 would expand the definition of child pornography to include computer-generated images that are indistinguishable from an actual minor under the age of 16 years old.
A.B. 71 would expand the definition of child pornography to include the language “depicting a child for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who may view the depiction” and lack serious value.
H.B. 855 and S.B. 1454 would make several changes to the definition of harmful to minors and to the definition of child pornography.
S.B. 736 would expand the definition of child pornography to include computer-generated images that are indistinguishable from an actual minor under the age of 16 years old.
Indiana S.B. 14 would amend the existing state statute criminalizing sexually explicit depictions of minors. The existing law applies to descriptions of minors, drawings of minors and depictions of adults who appear to be minors.
Indiana S.B. 313 would amend the existing state statute that criminalizes the possession or dissemination of any material that contains depictions of minors engaged in “sexual conduct.” The existing law is unconstitutionally overbroad.
Florida S.B. 1618 would revise the definition of the term “child pornography” to include visual depiction that has been “created, adapted, or modified to appear” that a minor engaged in sexual conduct.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that expanded the definition of child pornography to images do not include an actual child, such as visual media involving adults portraying minors, computer-generated images, drawings and sculptures. The Court held that child pornography is limited to depictions of actual minors.
The U.S. District Court ruled that the film “Tin Drum” is not child pornography and that its seizure by the Oklahoma City police was an unlawful prior restraint.
The 3rd Circuit ruled that non-nude depictions of minors can be prosecuted as child pornography.
The U.S. Supreme Court established that actual images of minors engaged in sex or lascivious nudity is a class of speech exempt from First Amendment protection.
