Online resource to look up cases of obscenity prosecutions

Hi, there is a website where we can find cases of obscenity prosecutions. Currently identifying the number of cases that exist for the following statues:

18 U.S.C. § 1460- Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on Federal property
18 U.S.C. § 1461- Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter
18 U.S.C. § 1462- Importation or transportation of obscene matters
18 U.S.C. § 1463- Mailing indecent matter on wrappers or envelopes
18 U.S.C. § 1464- Broadcasting obscene language
18 U.S.C. § 1465- Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution
18 U.S.C. § 1466- Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter
18 U.S.C. § 1466A- Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children (including fiction)
18 U.S.C. § 1468- Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television

Search function available here:{"query"%3A"content%3Aobscenity%20case"%2C"offset"%3A0}

Interesting thing about 1466A is that it can be prosecuted against Mangas and cartoons. Unlike 2256 which has great definitions which essentially state there MUST be a victim, 1466A can include victimless crimes like receipt of certain Mangas deemed “obscene”. With our heavy reliance on the internet, it seems the criminalization of receipt may go against the spirit of Georgia VS Stanley that declared criminalization simple possession of obscenity illegal.

Looking at some 1466a cases… It seems to me sometimes REAL CSAM (that just happened to have a face of another child copy and pasted over the original CSAM photo) is for whatever reason prosecuted under 1466A rather than 2252. So will need to be careful to separate cases like this (which HAVE real victims) from created fictional works (which have no victims).

My goal is trying to find out if Obscenity law is truly almost dead. Some of the worst aspects of obscenity is prosecution of receipt via the internet. It’s already terrible going after someone for selling a drawing, it’s beyond cruel to go after someone with a 10-20 year sentence over viewing a drawing. A 10-20 year sentence is what would be justice for premeditated murder, not looking at drawings. America, the “Land of the Free” is the only country that punishes viewing drawings as harshly as premeditated murder.

Trying to find statistics on number of prosecutions for drawings, CGI, and other fictional representations. as well as number of prosecutions for obscenity involving real adults too.

The general idea is that they are quite rare, but I haven’t looked into every case yet. I hope you guys also help me find the real numbers.

1 Like

Wow, those prosecutors are just lazy, then. 2252 is drafted in such a way that it should be able to stick in a case where images have been photoshopped. I am guessing that the prosecutor was just trying to forestall an argument that a photoshopped image didn’t appear to be a real child, and since that argument doesn’t fly under 1466a, they just went with that. But honestly, it doesn’t fly under 2252 either. (Sorry to get so legalistic.)

1 Like