Child pornography and child nudity: Why and how states may constitutionally regulate the production, possession, and distribution of nude visual depictions of children

Temple Law Review

Volumn 71, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 609-

  Steven Grasz, L ^a   Pfaltzgraff, Patrick J ^b  

^a Univercity of Nebraska   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 11544365823     PISSN: 08998086     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (4)

1. NATIONAL COALITION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, STATEMENT (1997).
2. See the works of Robert Mapplethorpe, Jock Sturges, David Hamilton, and Sally Mann for examples of this medium.
3. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756-57 (1982). See also Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111 (1990) (finding Ohio statute proscribing possession and viewing of child pornography constitutional). It should be noted that the Supreme Court has only held that "visual depictions of children" constitute child pornography, and not written materials. See Ferber, 458 U.S. at 764 (stating that "[t]he nature of the harm to be combated requires that the State offense be limited to works that visually depict sexual conduct by children below a specified age"). Thus, references to "child pornography" throughout this Article refer only to visual depictions of children - i.e. photographs, videos, or digitized images of children.
4. Ferber, 458 U.S. at 764.