New York v. Ferber
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
New York v. Ferber, Template:Ussc, was a United States Supreme Court decision. The Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity.
Background of the case
Paul Ferber and Tim Quinn owned an adult bookstore in Manhattan. Ferber came to the attention of the police when he sold to an undercover police officer two films depicting boys masturbating. He was charged with violating a New York law that forbade the sale of any performance depicting sexual conduct of children under the age of 16. At trial he was convicted, and the conviction was affirmed by the intermediate appellate court. The New York Court of Appeals found that the First Amendment protected Ferber's conduct, and reversed the conviction. The State of New York asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
Court's opinion
For a long time before the decision, the Court had ruled that the First Amendment allowed the regulation of obscenity. Under the Court's previous decision in Miller v. California, Template:Ussc, material is "obscene" if, taken as a whole and applying contemporary community standards, it lacks serious scientific, literary, artistic, or political value, is "patently offensive" and aimed at "prurient interests". The court in Ferber found that child pornography, however, may be banned without first being deemed obscene under Miller
- The government has a very compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children.
- Distribution of visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children. The images serve as a permanent reminder of the abuse, and it is necessary for government to regulate the channels of distributing such images if it is to be able to eliminate the production of child pornography.
- Advertising and selling child pornography provides an economic motive for producing child pornography.
- Visual depictions of children engaged in sexual activity have negligible artistic value.
- Thus, holding that child pornography is outside the protection of the First Amendment is consistent with the Court's prior decisions limiting the banning of materials deemed "obscene" as the Court had previously defined it. For this reason, child pornography need not be legally obscene before being outlawed.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 458
- Stanley v. Georgia, Template:Ussc
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Template:Ussc, distinguishing virtual child pornography, as its creation does not abuse real children.
