Exactly.
The first amendment doesnt protect obscene
But this film isn't obscene.
Miller v. California (1973) sets out a three-prong test,
all of which must be met, for expression to be considered "obscene".
1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; and
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Let's say
Cuties does appeal to the prurient interest. So first of all, how is twerking considered "patently offensive sexual conduct"? I also find it hard to believe that
Cuties lacks political value, considering that the provocative cinematography is designed to and has elicited social commentary. And considering that the film won an award at Sundance Film Festival, how does it not have artistic value? Ergo, not obscenity.
This lawsuit is clearly a political gambit by a group of Bible-thumping boomers in some bumfuck flyover shithole in Texas. It has very little chance of prevailing and, if you like the First Amendment, you should hope that it doesn't.
The first amendment doesnt protect sexual depictions of children
Well, what does "sexual depiction" mean?
First of all, nothing in the film fits the definition of "child pornography" or "sexually explicit conduct" as defined by applicable federal law in 18 U.S.C.§2256. The film contains no depictions of intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, or sadomasochistic activity, nor does it contains a lascivious exhibition of the breasts, anus, genital, or pubic areas of any person.
The First Amendment doesn't protect real child pornography because it is considered "speech integral to criminal conduct", as child pornography can only be produced via some form of criminal conduct. Ergo, laws that criminalize the distribution and possession of child pornography survive strict scrutiny; see
New York v. Ferber (1982) and
Osborne v. Ohio (1990).
But simulated child pornography isn't necessarily unprotected. In
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act because that law bans materials that are not obscene based on the
Miller standard, nor are produced by exploiting real children. This is why the 18 U.S.C.§1466A only criminalizes simulated child pornography if said material is "obscene" and/or lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
Well, I know a whole lot more than you, that's for sure. You are a clown.
The feds finding a video of a 12 year old thot dancing on your pc should not land you in jail
It should not, as long as she's dressed.
www.texastribune.org
www.americanscientist.org
