Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Georgia that state laws making mere private possession of obscene material a crime are invalid, [58] at least in the absence of an intention to sell, expose, or circulate the material. Subsequently, however, the Supreme Court rejected the claim that under Stanley there is a constitutional right to provide obscene material for private use [ 59 ...
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.
The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, title VII, subtitle N of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, enacted November 18, 1988, H.R. 5210, is part of a United States Act of Congress which places record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials.
As a result, law enforcement efforts intensified, and legal frameworks evolved to address these changes. Early laws typically focused on prosecuting those who produced or distributed child sex abuse material, but as the internet facilitated broader access, laws were expanded to target individuals who possessed or accessed child pornography. [9]
The selling and distribution of pornographic material is illegal in India under section 294, 295, 296. [65] The distribution, sale, or circulation of obscene materials and the selling of pornographic content to any person under age 20 years are illegal under section 293 and IT Act-67B. [66]
Whorley argued that the law's prohibition on receiving obscene images was "facially unconstitutional" because "receiving materials is an incident of their possession, and possession of obscene ...
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), was a landmark decision of the U.S Supreme Court, unanimously ruling that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution did not protect the sale or manufacture of child sexual abuse material (also known as child pornography) and that states could outlaw it.
Elliott argued it has no literary value to override obscene scenes. Reynolds, who spoke on behalf of JCPS, disagreed. Literary value is when people gain something from a book, she said.