I saw this point of view stated in the Wikinews article as well, but
I thought it sounded suspicious to me so I asked some lawyers about it.
According to all lawyers I've talked to, the reasoning below is
incorrect -- the Miller Test is a defense against obscenity charges
but it is not a defense against child pornography charges. If a
picture shows a real minor doing sexual things then no amount of
artistic merit is a defense. The only defense is that the picture
isn't actually sexual, and of course pictures of naked children are
not automatically sexual which is why they're not illegal.
At 09:05 PM 12/9/2008, Ronald Chmara wrote:
On Dec 9, 2008, at 9:56 AM, DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA
CIV DFAS wrote:
I simply don't have information to make a
but I've lived on this planet long enough to know that picture was
acceptable in America (1776 to date).
The Miller test has three prongs, each of which must be satisfied:
The (S)LAPS test is the one you're looking for, where "[Serious]
Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific" value exempts speech from
being classified as obscene.
While you're at it, read up on:
Basically, legally claiming works of art with naked children are
'obscene', simply because somebody finds it offensive, is
unconstitutional in the United States..
Not only has such an artistic image (Virgin Killer) depicting a naked
child picture been legal *since the founding fathers drew up the bill
of rights*, repeated attempts to legislatively change this have
failed, because doing so would require changing the wording of no
less than the Constitution of the United States. (We take that
document kind of seriously here, our military swears allegiance to it
*over* our president, our congress, etc.)
Other nations find banning art, or political ideas, or science, or
literature in the name of "obscenity" acceptable, but since its
founding, the US has rejected such ideas.
I can't believe I've having to publicly lecture somebody with a
@dfas.mil email address about this.