Ah, those dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
1 Like
Here is another article about SB20.
I just learned of this today… sad.
The other problem with obscenity is you do have the right to possess it within the privacy of your home. The US Supreme Court ruled in Stanley v Georgia that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited making private possession of obscene materials a crime. I believe the Texas law also makes possession within the home illegal, which would contradict the US Supreme court ruling.
3 Likes
The Indiana Court of Appeals has determined a 2022 state law prohibiting Hoosiers from possessing or viewing simulated child pornography is unconstitutional because no actual children are harmed by its production.
The 3-0 decision was practically foreordained after the office of Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita conceded the statute enacted by the Republican-controlled General Assembly and Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb was incompatible with the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and prior legal precedents.
In 1969, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the government cannot prohibit Americans from possessing obscene materials inside their homes because “our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men’s minds.”
The nation’s high court made an exception to that standard in 1982 and 1990 for actual child pornography, however, because it found the creation of child pornography is a form of child abuse, and the government’s interest in protecting children from sexual abuse outweighs the right of individuals to possess child pornography.
But simulated child pornography, whether hand-drawn or computer animated, is different — and constitutionally protected — the Supreme Court said in 2002 because no no real, living children are abused to create it.
At issue in this case were Japanese-type cartoon drawings of young girls engaged in sex acts in a style generally known as “Lolicon,” a reference to the Vladimir Nabokov novel “Lolita” about a middle-aged professor’s sexual obsession with his 12-year-old stepdaughter.
According to court records, Frank Grecco III, of Plainfield, was charged with two counts of possession of child pornography after he admitted during a job interview with the Indiana State Police that he was “addicted to” animated child pornography, and a subsequent police search of Grecco’s electronic devices confirmed he viewed simulated child pornography images on at least three websites.
Grecco claimed prior to trial the charges against him should be dismissed because they alleged “no possession of pornography of any actual, living and breathing children” — an argument rejected by Hendricks Superior Judge Stephenie LeMay-Luken.
The unanimous ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals reverses the trial judge’s decision and directs the charges against Grecco be dismissed.
The legal precedents underlying that outcome were well known — but disregarded — by Hoosier lawmakers when the provisions of House Bill 1191 (2022), which did not pass the House, were inserted by the Senate in House Enrolled Act 1363 (2022), the annual Department of Child Services agency legislation, and overwhelmingly approved by the General Assembly.
Earlier this year, the Legislature in Senate Enrolled Act 17 (2024) also barred adult-oriented websites from displaying sexually explicit content to Indiana adults unless the website employs a rigorous age-verification system.
U.S. District Senior Judge Richard Young said June 30 that law likely violates the 1st Amendment rights of Hoosier adults in its zeal to prevent individuals younger than 18 years old from accessing adult-oriented content online.
Though the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nevertheless permitted the Indiana law to take effect in August while awaiting a U.S. Supreme Court ruling next year on a similar Texas statute the nation’s high court tentatively allowed to go into force.
It’s my hope that this bill, like many others throughout the US that have been presented, die in committees and such. But also, @Doc_Dot does point out an interesting idea.
The CBLDF and the ACLU have acknowledged issues with this bill, so hopefully they’ll be at the ready to help out, if need be.
5 Likes
Kinda scary how celebrated this bill is. This unconditional hate for pedophiles will be societies eventual downfall when it comes to the liberty of its people.
So many laws and mass surveillance projects are founded on the simple disgust and hatred for pedophiles. It does not matter when you swore to never hurt a child, or point out that majority of CSA is committed by non-pedophiles.
It is worse to have sexual feelings for children than to sexually abuse a child. Like how a swiss man pointed out that “at least my client has no pedophilia” and the judge agreed reducing his sentence, because of this fact.
Amazing how a simple attraction is so feared that mere thoughts are grounds for jail time.
Meanwhile Japan, one of the safest countries on earth, is chilling.
3 Likes
Its weird that law was declared unconstitutional given that it did have an obscenity clause and Indiana is conservative as fuck.
I just realized the Texas one that was proposed does have an obscenity clause, but possession of obscenity cannot be criminalized, so the statute is unlikely to survive as it is written.
2 Likes