Re: Newfound Patriotism

"The court had earlier heard Dawson had entered a "strange fantasy land" of sexually-explicit text conversations, online chats and Skype communications.
Advertisement

"County Court judge Gerard Mullaly said while there was no visual child pornography involved, Dawson "often set the tone" in conversations with others."

NO VISUAL?

The US Supreme Court ruled on April 16, 2002 that adult material depicting minors that was not made through the use of any actual minor is protected free speech. The ruling was against the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA)

The U.S. Supreme Court has always ruled that the pictures in nudist magazines are not illegal or obscene. They are protected by the First Amendment and are not subject to local obscenity laws or ordinances. The depiction of adults and children nude in the visual media has enjoyed constitutional protection in the United States since 1958. The right to depict adults and children in innocent nude poses has been upheld without a pause for over 41 years. In case after case, the Supreme Court and lower courts have always upheld the constitutionality of "nudity without more," specifically referring to the nudist depiction as a fully constitutional form of expression.