Legal Eaze
Legal Eaze
By: Maxine de Villefranche
Topics:
Posted by editor Wed Aug 23, 2006 16:45:12 PDT
Viewed 815 times
0 responses 0 comments I heard that there is now a federal law protecting minors from being deceived into viewing sexually explicit material on the Internet. Is that correct?
Let's say that your young but Internet-savvy child does an online search for “Barney the Dinosaur.” The search engine directs him to a site called www.barneythedinosaurfanclub.com.
Your kid clicks on the website and the front page of the site shows a picture of Barney the purple dinosaur with a message reading, “Click on Barney's picture to see all of his latest adventures.”
Your kid clicks on the picture as directed — and is instantly transported to a website featuring hot XXX hardcore sex action of the most depraved sort imaginable.
If a website owner now tries that trick, it could soon land him up to 20 years in prison (assuming that he is in a place that could be subject to U.S. legal jurisdiction).
In July, Congress passed a law that makes it a federal felony for anyone to use misleading “words” or “images” that are intended to confuse a minor into viewing a sexually explicit website. It is all part of the “Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act of 2006” — one of the most extensive rewrites of federal laws concerning child pornography and sex offenders in several years.
The law was named after Adam Walsh, a young child who was tragically abducted and killed in the early 1980s (his father, John Walsh, went on to host the television show “America's Most Wanted”).
The law states, in part: “Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years.”
This law defines the phrase “harmful to minors” as “any communication consisting of nudity, sex, or excretion, that, taken as a whole and with reference to its context-
(1) predominantly appeals to a prurient interest of minors;
(2) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole, with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
(3) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”
Civil libertarians worry that the law might be too broadly worded. Could you get into trouble by posting pictures of Barbie dolls engaged in sex acts if your site is designed to appeal to Barbie fans with a sense of humor? The argument would be that the site wasn't specifically geared for only minors, or that the pictures still hold “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors” as the law allows for. It is a natural inclination to think that authorities would use common sense in enforcing this law. But if you have any serious concerns - consult an attorney.
Maxine deVillefranche is an attorney and civil general practitioner with 13 years of experience. She practices law from her Tehachapi office as well as her Lancaster satellite office. She will answer legal questions posed to her by the readers, to the best of her abilities. Email your questions to maxinedev@msn.com or fax to (661) 825-8880.
| Send to a Friend | Report a Violation |