Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
comments I've been making
#1
I have a lot of comments on this I'll start with this one 18 USC 1466A was deemed unconstitutional as you stated in UNITED STATES v. HANDLEY (2008) he was thrown in jail as you stated for receiving obscene material and not child porn. 18 USC 1466A was deemed unconstitutional again just this year UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STEVEN ANDEREGG, (2025) because 18 USC 1466 made possession of obscene material (including AI) illegal. The court ruled a person has the right to look at obscene material in the privacy of their home citing Stanley v Georgia (1969) including AI material that is indistinguishable. it's only illegal to distribute.
Dwight Whorley wasn't at a library he was at a government employment agency; people also tend to fail to mention that Mr. Whorley was on parole for CP he wasn't supposed to have the stuff real or not to begin with it was a violated his parole. it is illegal to transport obscene material over interstate commerce, the federal government has sole jurisdiction over interstate commerce. Article I section 8 clause 3. States can only regulate intrastate commerce.

The Miller test as you stated is a three-prong test. for something to be obscene it has to be all three prongs not just one. where some of these law like the PROTECT ACT and the Texas law are unconstitutional because they only require one prong of the miller test. As for using just one line in a book to claim it obscene the court ruled in the 1950 and 60's that the work must be taken as whole, you just can use one line or image. Whorley judge was wrong.
Reply
#2
The Protect act was deemed unconstitutional in UNITED STATES v. HANDLEY (2008) because it made 1. it put virtual child porn back into the category as real child porn which the court stated that it cannot be classified as child porn because child must be real images of real children engaged in sexual activity. The court also stated that for an image for obscene it must be all three prongs of the miller test. The Protect Act only required one of the three prongs, this making it unconstitutional. In 2025 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. STEVEN ANDEREGG, (2025) The district court in the 7th district ruled that the PROTECT ACT was unconstitutional because it made the possession of obscene material illegal which the US Supreme court in Stanley v Georgia ruled that it was legal to possession in the privacy in one. Since AI and virtual child porn wasn't real child porn and is can only been deemed obscene, and possession of it in the privacy in your own home is not illegal.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)