The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging the validity of the 2003 “PROTECT Act” that Congress passed in order to reinforce and expand federal controls on child porn after the Court struck down a 1996 federal law that brought about Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002). The PROTECT Act is separate from the law struck down last week by a federal judge in Philadelphia, involving a federal law that solely targets Internet distribution of sexually explicit materials in order to protect children with access to computers and other online devices.
The case is United States v. Williams (06-694).
View the certiorari petition here and the reply brief here.
What does this mean as far as the LGBT community is concerned, you ask? Plenty.
2257 Regulations
As part of its legislative mandate, the PROTECT Act directs the U.S. attorney general to enforce regulations that govern the creation and reproduction of online pornography. Section 2257 of Title 18 of the United States Code took effect on 23 June 2005. The statute requires producers of sexually explicit material to attain proof of age for every model they shoot, and keep those records on hand. Federal inspectors may — at any time — launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction.
While the statute seemingly excluded from these record-keeping requirements anyone who is involved in activity “which does not involve hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for, the participation of the performers depicted,” the Department of Justice defined an entirely new class of producers known as “secondary producers.” According to the DOJ, a secondary producer is anyone who “publishes, reproduces, or reissues” explicit material.
If you have risque photographs on your Manhunt profile, you’re a secondary producer. If you have sexy pics on your personal blog, you fall within that category. It doesn’t matter if it’s just a butt shot, a cartoon or full frontal nudity. The government doesn’t care; they just want to be able to sanitize the Internet in the name of morality. While only one case has been brought to trial in light of the foregoing, it’s clear that the statutes have had a chilling effect on free speech. Even if no actual humans were involved, a new law is being codified into 2257A which will eventually ban depictions of simulated sex.
Remember that in all instances, one must think of the children.
