Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
KEY point
#1
The Charge is one count for one image that the state is claiming is child porn. Agent O'Sullivan who is the FBI forensic expert claimed it was computer-generated.

In Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition (which I was somewhat part of) the US Supreme Court in 2002 ruled that computer-generated images were not only legal but constitutional protected speech. 

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition | Oyez


In 2003 the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that virtual images including computer-generated images was legal and constitutional protected speech.

PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER (2003) | FindLaw
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: