On November 14, the Senate approved, by unanimous consent, legislation (S. 2520) that would ban computer-generated child pornography. The House approved similar legislation (H.R. 4623) on June 25 (See The Source, 6/28/02).
Sponsored by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the bill would rewrite the 1996 Child Pornography and Prevention Act (CPPA), portions of which were invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment.
In April, the Court ruled that the CPPA, which expanded the prohibition on child pornography, was overly broad and unconstitutional because it could impinge on legitimate works of art. The Court ruling said that the law was so broad that it could have banned classics such as “Romeo and Juliet.”
Carefully crafted in response to the Court’s decision, S. 2520 would narrow the definition of virtual child pornography by requiring consideration of the artistic, literary, or educational value of the work as a whole.
The bill includes several added provisions designed to help police and investigators prosecute child pornography cases and protect the rights of children. The bill would establish a victim shield law to keep the identity of child victims out of court and would increase the penalties for repeat offenders who cross state lines to sexually molest a minor. The legislation also would create a new felony charge for using child pornography, virtual or not, to pander or entice a minor into engaging in sexual activity and would expand recordkeeping requirements for pornographic material and penalties for false recordkeeping.
Senate Committee Action
Earlier the same day, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved, by voice vote, the same legislation (S. 2520).
The Committee also adopted, by voice vote, two amendments by Sen. Hatch, in an attempt to bring the legislation closer to the bill (H.R. 4623) approved by the House on June 25.
One amendment would change the definition of an “identifiable minor” so that it includes “a computer generated image that is virtually indistinguishable from an actual minor.” The second amendment would expand the definition of “pandering” and would make it a crime to present any material that would convey an impression of a minor engaging in sexual activities.