Also known as: pornographic · pornographies · obscene material
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
Material depicting sexual activity or erotic behavior designed to arouse sexual excitement. Such material receives First Amendment protection unless it meets the legal standard for obscenity.
Visual depictions of a person under the age of eighteen engaged in sexual conduct. This category of material is unprotected by the First Amendment even when it does not satisfy the obscenity standard.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Material depicting sexual activity or erotic behavior designed to arouse sexual excitement. Such material receives First Amendment protection unless it meets the legal standard for obscenity.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Philip Powell opened a theater in a residential zone showing films with repeated sexual activity. City officials denied the permit under an ordinance limiting adult venues. The restriction applied because the films emphasized sexual content even though they were not obscene.
Pamela Phillips mailed promotional materials containing explicit sexual depictions to customers. Prosecutors sought to prove the materials were obscene. The court examined whether the works appealed to prurient interest, depicted sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacked serious value.
Regulations that default-block indecent but non-obscene content and condition adult access on unavailable age-verification technology impose an unconstitutional burden. The government may not suppress protected adult speech in the name of protecting minors when less restrictive alternatives exist. Courts invalidate such rules under strict scrutiny.
Supporting sources
Visual depictions of a person under the age of eighteen engaged in sexual conduct. This category of material is unprotected by the First Amendment even when it does not satisfy the obscenity standard.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pablo Perez sold digital files to Pierre Poulin showing individuals under eighteen performing sexual acts. Authorities charged Perez with distribution. The prosecution proceeded because the images involved actual minors regardless of artistic claims or lack of obscenity.
An accusation that a person downloaded or possessed child pornography imputes serious criminal conduct. Such statements fall within the slander per se category because they allege an imprisonable offense involving moral turpitude. The plaintiff may therefore recover presumed damages upon proving the other elements of defamation.
Supporting sources
Images depicting minors under eighteen in sexually suggestive poses fall within the unprotected child pornography category. The government may prohibit their distribution because of the compelling interest in preventing exploitation of children. Artistic framing or the presence of non-sexual images in the same work does not restore protection.
Supporting sources
…478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner , and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated…
…all sorts of crimes by adults "in matters pertaining to sex": prostitution, adult incest, adultery, obscenity, and child pornography. Sodomy laws, too, have been enforced "in the past half century," in which there have been 134 reported cases involving prosecutions for consensual, adult, homosexual sodomy. Gaylaw 375. In…
…v. Metromedia, Inc. , 403 U. S. 29 (1971). Rosenbloom, a distributor of nudist magazines, was arrested for selling allegedly obscene material
…prevents a finding of obscenity. Unfortunately for the purveyors of obscenity, that is obviously false. A shockingly hardcore pornographic
…courts." Since there is surely a less vital interest in the uninhibited exhibition of material that is on the borderline between
Peter Park kept adult films depicting consensual sexual acts in his home. Police seized the collection during an unrelated search. The seizure raised questions about whether private possession of non-obscene pornography could support criminal liability.
Piper Patel posted artistic nude photographs on a public bulletin board. The city cited her under an ordinance targeting sexually explicit images. The challenge asserted that the ordinance singled out pornography for disfavored treatment beyond its proscribable elements.
Paragon Construction employees viewed adult pornography on company devices during off hours. Management discovered the activity and disciplined the workers. The employees argued that private adult viewing implicated protected liberty interests in sexual expression.
Child pornography involves actual minors under eighteen engaged in sexual conduct. This category receives no First Amendment protection because of the government's compelling interest in eliminating the market for exploitative material. Adult pornography remains protected unless it meets the separate Miller obscenity test.
Supporting sources