@snow Is seems the act has been challenged in court and are often found unconstitutional. but it has yet to be heard by the supreme court, so we really don't know if the law will be upheld should it continue to be applied. Here is a wikipedia quote referencing that:

"Response to "18 U.S.C. § 1466A" has been met with legal challenges regarding its vague wording. In particular the law testing the criminalization of a "visual depiction of any kind" has since been tried in courts. In October 2008, a 38-year-old Iowa comic collector named Christopher Handley was prosecuted for possession of explicit lolicon manga. The judge ruled that two parts of the act that were broader than the Miller standard, 1466A a(2) and b(2), unconstitutionally overbroad"

@freemo

This is the whole case of Christopher Handley :

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-02-11/christopher-handley-sentenced-to-6-months-for-obscene-manga

He is jailed for that.

@snow Yea I noticed :( Luckily other courts since then have deemed it unconstitutional and it hasn't been tried at the supreme court yet to know if it will be upheld.

@freemo

REALLY?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Handley#cite_note-16

@snow

Yes, really. That is not a supreme court case you linked.

@freemo

Quote:

"United States v. Dean challenged the overbreadth ruling because the Handley case failed to prove that 1466A a(2) and b(2) were substantially overbroad in limiting protected speech.[16]"

@snow

Yes, that doesnt in any way contradict what i said.

1) the Dean case was not at the supreme court level so has sets no legal presedence outside of Iowa, for starters

2) The handly case had in fact made significant progress in arguing the unconstitutional nature of the law and the judge on that case agreed with such a ruling. The only reason it "failed to prove" is because handley took a plea bargain in order to avoid other charges and thus while the court did decide the law was unconstitutional it failed to actually set legal precedence in doing so.

@freemo


Can't find the link mentioned "unconstitutional " with keyword 1466A.

@snow Thats funny because the word is explicitly used in the very wikipedia articles you are quoting:

" The judge ruled that two parts of the act that were broader than the Miller standard, 1466A a(2) and b(2), unconstitutionally overbroad"

@freemo

Then it is claimed "unconstitutionally overbroad" by a district court judge but not unconstitutional.


Glad to see some people into jail for 1466A after that.

@snow No you are misreading it. It was claimed to be unconstitutional by a judge, the reason it was unconstitutional was due to being "overly broad".

The district court judge **did not** rule that it was not unconstitutional however. What he ruled is that the Headley case, by virtue of the fact that it entered a plea bargain and thus did not have its ruling set legal precedence effectively failed to set the legal precedence of the law being unconstitutional due to being overly broad. Since it had failed to set the legal precedent the defendant in the Dean case was unable to use the ruling of it being unconstitutional as precedent in his own case. So in the Dean case again no precedent was reached either way.

You are also incorrect in your final statement implying that dean went to jail for 1466A, he did not. United States v. Dean was in NO way a charge under 1466A, which again is partly why it set no precedent with regards to the constitutionality of 1466A. The case was in regard to if SORA, a different law, was retroactively applicable. It was in no way ruling on 1466A itself. More over the consequences of United States v. Dean was **not** jail time for dean, in fact despite loosing the case it had no real consequences for him at all.

It should also be noted that at a state level many states laws explicitly state that cartoon child pornography is legal, for example in california, which puts the federal law in even further doubt and is unlikely to upheld int he future and its constitutionality will likely be challenged again.

In fact since the judge ruled act 1466A as unconstitutional there has not been a single person convicted under that law and its constitutionality has not been confirmed or reinforced by a single judge.

@freemo

attacking the straw man again. Wanted to mute you.


That's after hanley'a case:


The request for en banc rehearing of United States v. Whorley from the Court of Appeals was denied on June 15, 2009. A petition for writ of certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court on September 14, 2009, and denied on January 11, 2010, without comment.

(The 20 years guy)

@snow If you want to mute me, mute me, dont threaten to mute me, because I really dont care if you do, thats on you.

And yes that case was denied a trial at the Supreme Court without comment.. In other words, the Supreme Court has made **no** ruling as of yet whether or not 1466A is constitutional in any way.

Furthermore the grounds under which 1466A was being disputed in the United States v. Whorley case was based on the idea that no actual person was being harmed, which is very different than the grounds under which the 1466A was considered unconstitutional, which was based on being too broad with regards to the miller standard, which so far all courts have upheld but did not get tested at the supreme court either.

So again, what you are stating here is, yet again, in no way contradictory to any claims I have made.

@freemo


Zzzz

@snow One other important note.. while 1466(a) does make an attempt to make the exchange of drawings of child pornography illegal across state lines and in public, that is as far as the law attempts to go.

The law explicitly **protects** such drawings in the privacy of ones own home, and does not in any way suggest that such material is legal when exchanged **within state borders**.

As such it is wholly false to argue that drawings of child pornography is illegal in the USA. In fact it is explicitly legal in many states (California) with no federal law contradicting that, and is explicitly protected within ones home so even should a state law attempt to make it illegal within the border of ones state it would still be perfectly legally when viewed in private or when exchanged in a private setting.

The court case from USA v. Wholey explicitly confirms and states this fact with the following case summary written by the judge in that hearing:

In Stanley, the United States Supreme Court carved out a narrow zone of constitutionally protected privacy which allows for the personal possession and perusal of obscenity in one's home. Id. at 565; 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 1248, 22 L.Ed.2d 542 (1969).

@snow @freemo it's illegal if it's found to be obscenity by a court/judge. the problem there is many things can be considered obscene and are left untouched.