Pandering and porn

October 30, 2007

This morning, SCOTUS began the process of deciding whether the “pandering” provision of the PROTECT Act is too vague.

The crux of today’s arguments (PDF): whether the Act (which criminalizes the possession and distribution of child porn) is so broad that it includes fictional material and legitimate promotions for films such as Traffic, Lolita or American Beauty, which feature sex scenes involving under-age characters.

A reporter from our sister blog, DC Dicta, was present at the arguments and blogged on the proceedings.

-JACKIE SAUTER, Multimedia Editor

Sphere: Related Content

Comments

Got something to say?





Law

The Daily Record’s been Maryland’s legal newspaper for 120 years or so. Now, we want to be Maryland’s legal blog, too. Click here to join the discussion and read posts by our legal team, including our Monday law blog round-up.

RSS Law posts

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • Tim: The kid was wrong! He either was not taught to respect others especially those in authority or he has rebelled...
  • Richard Simon: If you would like to see a live video feed from Technite at the Baltimore Convention Center, go to...
  • Kim: A typical root canal with a specialist will usually run a human from $1000 to $2000.
  • publicus: Of course Congress should pass such a law. Without it, the freedom of speech in every country would be...
  • neil helfrich: Barbara, Dana is Dan Moylan’s daughter not Charles Moylan”s daughter. BTW, the theory does...

On Commenting

We ask that our readers follow a few guidelines, noted below.

Please do not post any personal attacks, profanity, spam or other advertisements — they will be removed. Also, please post using only one name or pseudonym, as this consistency helps establish a sense of community. We will delete posts if they are signed with different names but originate from the same IP or email address. And if you’re going to comment using a proper name, please make it your own. Deliberate misrepresentations will be removed.