Also known as: child pornographies · child-pornography · child porn · CSAM
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Material depicting a person under the age of eighteen engaged in sexual activity. Such material receives no First Amendment protection even if it would not qualify as obscene under the Miller test because the government has a compelling interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of children.
Connor Clark sold digital files showing actual minors performing sexual acts to Charlotte Chung for several hundred dollars each. The transaction occurred through an encrypted messaging service. Prosecutors charged Clark under a statute targeting the commercial distribution of such depictions. The court upheld the prosecution because the videos involved real children in sexual conduct.
Cody Callahan published an article reviewing a film that included scenes of minors in sexual conduct. A lower court found the material unprotected. On appeal the reviewing court examined the record independently to confirm that the images actually depicted real minors engaged in the prohibited conduct before affirming liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Catherine Carter challenged a city ordinance that singled out visual depictions of minors in sexual conduct for prohibition while allowing other violent imagery. The court rejected the challenge. It explained that the government may target the distinct harm of child exploitation without violating content-neutrality rules that apply to protected speech.
Caitlin Crowley received repeated government mailings offering material depicting minors in sexual conduct. She eventually ordered a package. At trial she raised an entrapment defense. The court examined whether the government had implanted the criminal design or merely provided an opportunity to a predisposed purchaser.
Carmen Choi argued that private possession of material depicting minors in sexual conduct should receive the same protection as adult intimate conduct in the home. The court rejected the claim. It held that the state's interest in protecting children from exploitation permits regulation even of private possession.
Central Dynamics faced prosecution after employees stored files depicting minors in sexual conduct on company servers. The company claimed the conduct was unavoidable because of automated caching. The court distinguished the case from situations involving truly involuntary acts and upheld liability because the material itself remained regulable.
No. Visual depictions of actual minors engaged in sexual conduct receive no First Amendment protection regardless of any artistic or educational framing. The government's compelling interest in preventing child exploitation justifies the categorical exclusion even when the material would not be obscene.
Supporting sources
Yes. The Supreme Court treats child pornography as a distinct unprotected category separate from obscenity. The state may prohibit sale and distribution of visual depictions of minors in sexual conduct without proving prurient appeal, patent offensiveness, or lack of serious value.
Supporting sources
Yes. Explicit visual depictions of minors simulating sexual acts fall within the unprotected category. The harm arises from the involvement of real children in the production of the material, not from whether the acts were literally performed off camera.
Supporting sources
Yes. Unlike adult obscenity, the government may criminalize even private possession of child pornography. The compelling interest in drying up the market for exploitative material extends to possession.
Supporting sources
…to prosecute 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…