Talk:Child pornography laws in the United States

Handley and Whorley
If it's relevant to mention Handley on this article then I would think it would also be with Whorley. That said, like said on the Canada article this seems to have predominant focus on the content previously present on the loli article (and now on legal stat of toon p depicting minors) and does not seem to address the more broad topic of these laws, but rather the segment of controversiality regarding fictional depictions. I think if the content will remain this way then it should be moved to a more specific title or else it should be broadened to address the entire topic, reflecting the body written under the article this split off from. Tyciol (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Record Keeping Requirements
When has this been updated? This does not even match this article here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography#United_States (A Wikipedia article what about that).
 * FTFY. Found the relevant case law from the EFF Internet Law Treatise and added it. I too found it odd to cite a 1992 case blocking enforcement of record keeping laws when every porn site and video includes these disclaimers in 2011.Joshuaism (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A Section Titled _Conclusion_?
What, is this somebody's high school essay? It is very NPOV to have a section titled conclusion in a Wikipedia article. Cornince (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

page falsely assumes all child porn harms someone.
"Child pornography is illegal and it does not have to be looked at in terms of the typical guidelines of the First Amendment, because it is illegal due to the harm it creates to children when child pornography is made, sold and owned.[18]"

This statement is not true in all cases, and stigmatizes the people who produce, sell, and own child porn. Since anyone <18 would be child porn, this leads the reader to believe that a 17 year old who takes a picture of her naked body for her boyfriend and sends it to him is harming/abusing herself, and that her boyfriend is harming/abusing her. I will change it to

"Child pornography is illegal in the US and is not looked at in terms of the typical guidelines of the First Amendment, due to the assumption that it harms children when it is made, sold, and/or owned. This is not always true, however."

and remove the source (http://www.childlaw.us/2008/07/why-offering-virtual-child-por.html) as it falsely assumes that all child porn exploits children.

"Similarly, the crime of child pornography is not merely offering images of sexually abused children, but it is the entire trade in such images which itself is firmly rooted in the wholesale exploitation of children."

That article ignores people who produce child porn that does not involve children being sexually abused and is clearly not well-informed on what constitutes child pornography (at least in the US). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.18.151 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Aand i broke the references at the bottom. Sorry about that but the article cited didn't have a place in a wikipedia article anyway as it did not seem to understand the legal definition of child pornography, and even someone who had performed a simple google search or watched the news one night and heard about teen sexting would have realized that not all child porn is harmful or exploitative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.18.151 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Bottom of this article moved to a new article
I have taken all of the United States v. Handley content and moved it to the article United States v. Handley, as the extensive discussion of one case was undue on this page.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  22:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is missing a lot
Lede says: "Federal sentencing guidelines on child pornography differentiate between production, distribution, and purchasing/receiving..." It should mention something about simple possession which does not carry mandatory minimum sentence, whereas all the other related offenses do. Furthermore, receipt does not necessary mean paying for the content. It means simply receiving it. In practice prosecutor has the discretion to charge the defendant found in possession the illegal content with either receipt (with 5 year mandatory minimum), or possession (no mandatory minimum) as possession presuppose receipt in most of the cases. . The article should also mention that large part of federal judges are rebelling against the current sentencing guidelines: in 2010 70% said they are too harsh and they handed below-guideline sentences in 45% of cases. ViperFace (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Child pornography laws in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051225195550/http://www.timesdispatch.com:80/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768481527 to http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768481527
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060913090237/http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/obscenity031006.htm to http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march06/obscenity031006.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Legal status of psilocybin mushrooms which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: TBD. Redundant. See Talk:Legal_status_of_psilocybin_mushrooms В²C ☎ 18:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Child pornography laws in the United States → Legality of child pornography in the United States – Several different formats exist for the titles of articles regarding the legality of a particular thing. I believe that all of these should be consistent with each other and that that format should be "Legality of X" (instead of "Legal status of X, Laws regarding X, etc.) Others have noted that "legality" is a more common term when referring to whether something is legal or illegal than "legal status". Michipedian (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Child pornography laws in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090526083325/http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/SCAC.HTM to http://www.ussc.gov/r_congress/SCAC.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712081709/http://www.childlaw.us/2008/07/why-offering-virtual-child-por.html to http://www.childlaw.us/2008/07/why-offering-virtual-child-por.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Lacking section on legislative history
I find it interesting that we are largely lacking legislative history in this article- it tells the what and the how, but not the "who" as to what the driving force behind the legislation actually was. This could end up presenting a WP:NPOV problem, though I'm going to leave out the NPOV tag for now. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Something to add
The article seems to state that in the US, CP is universally illegal, but not universally obscene. Under the Miller test, how exactly could CP ever be found to be non-obscene, i.e. what characteristics would it have? "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" it would have to somehow not satisfy this or the other prongs. — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 07:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)