All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Regulation of Computer-generated virtual Child Pornography under American and French Jurisprudence: One Country’s Protected “Speech” is another’s Harmful Smut.
Unformatted Document Text:  International Conventional on the Rights of the Child, 58 and their stipulations against child pornography. In effect French law had been overtaken by technology and international events. This contrasts with the United States where changes to the law were brought about by legal challenges from activists and civil rights groups. Indeed, the United States is yet to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, though it has signed the optional protocol. A comparative analysis of French and American law on child pornography shows that the laws were very similar—until the Supreme Court of the United States decided Reno v. ACLU 59 and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. 60 In effect, under French law, transmission of violent pornographic messages is illegal if the message is “likely to be seen or perceived by a minor.” 61 This provision of the French Penal Code is similar to the two provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that were invalidated by the Supreme Court of the United States because they were vague, overbroad and silenced speech within the rights of adults to view in an attempt to shield children from it. 62 Furthermore, French law on child pornography criminalizes the “production, transportation, and transmission “by any means whatsoever,” of a violent or pornographic message which harms or injures human dignity.” 63 Additionally, the law criminalizes pornographic images of persons whose physical features look like those of a minor unless it is established that the person was 18 years of age 58 See United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 34, A/RES/44/25 (1989). 59 See 521 U.S. 844 (1997). 60 535 U.S._____ (2002). 61 See Article 227-24, French Penal Code, Law No. 98-468 of 17 June 1998, art. 17, Journal Officiel No. 139 of 18 June 1998 page 9255.. 62 See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). 63 Article 227-24, French Penal Code, articles 13 & 16, Journal Officiel No. 139 of 18 June 1998 page 9255

Authors: Eko, Lyombe.
first   previous   Page 20 of 23   next   last



background image
International Conventional on the Rights of the Child,
58
and their stipulations
against child pornography. In effect French law had been overtaken by
technology and international events. This contrasts with the United States where
changes to the law were brought about by legal challenges from activists and
civil rights groups. Indeed, the United States is yet to ratify the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child, though it has signed the optional protocol.
A comparative analysis of French and American law on child pornography
shows that the laws were very similar—until the Supreme Court of the United
States decided Reno v. ACLU
59
and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
60
In
effect, under French law, transmission of violent pornographic messages is illegal
if the message is “likely to be seen or perceived by a minor.”
61
This provision of
the French Penal Code is similar to the two provisions of the Communications
Decency Act of 1996 that were invalidated by the Supreme Court of the United
States because they were vague, overbroad and silenced speech within the
rights of adults to view in an attempt to shield children from it.
62
Furthermore, French law on child pornography criminalizes the “production,
transportation, and transmission “by any means whatsoever,” of a violent or
pornographic message which harms or injures human dignity.”
63
Additionally, the
law criminalizes pornographic images of persons whose physical features look
like those of a minor unless it is established that the person was 18 years of age
58
See United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 34, A/RES/44/25 (1989).
59
See 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
60
535 U.S._____ (2002).
61
See Article 227-24, French Penal Code, Law No. 98-468 of 17 June 1998, art. 17, Journal Officiel No.
139 of 18 June 1998 page 9255..
62
See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
63
Article 227-24, French Penal Code, articles 13 & 16, Journal Officiel No. 139 of 18 June 1998 page 9255


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 20 of 23   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.