JD – if you cannot tell what porn is then you are to morally bankrupt or outright lying and it is impossible to continue any meaningful debate.
Breasts are not sexual in and of themselves, particularly not whan they are simply uncovered and not being displayed in an overtly sexual manner. It is not I who sees this in some obtuse, absurd, overly sexualized way, it is YOU.
MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES, 491 U. S. 576 (1989) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
it may argue only that their actions, though forbidden by the statute, may not constitutionally be proscribed. [
Footnote 3/1]
With the possible exception of the final step in this analysis, the resolution of these questions is straightforward. Photography, painting, and other two-dimensional forms of artistic reproduction described in Mass.Gen.Laws § 272:29A (1986) are plainly expressive activities that ordinarily qualify for First Amendment protection.
See, e.g., Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973) (works which, taken as a whole, possess serious artistic value are protected). And modeling, both independently and by virtue of its close association with those activities, enjoys like shelter under the First Amendment.
Cf. Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 452 U. S. 61, 452 U. S. 66 (1981) ("[N]ude dancing is not without its First Amendment protections from official regulation"). Visual depictions of children engaged in live sexual performances or lewdly exhibiting their genitals cannot, of course, claim protected status, even though those depictions are not obscene.
See New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747 (1982).
But other nonobscene representations of minors, including some that are pornographic, are shielded by the Constitution's guarantee of free speech. Id. at
458 U. S. 764-765. In particular, "nudity, without more is protected expression."
Id. at
458 U. S. 765, n. 18, citing
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205,
422 U. S. 213 (1975). Because
Page 491 U. S. 592
§ 29A's prohibition extends to posing or exhibiting children "in a state of nudity," rather than merely to their participation in live or simulated sexual conduct, the statute clearly restrains expression within the ambit of the First Amendment.
It is equally evident that the Commonwealth's asserted interest in preventing the sexual exploitation and abuse of minors is "of surpassing importance."
Ferber, supra, at
458 U. S. 757.
See also Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629,
390 U. S. 639-641 (1968). The coercive enlistment, both overt and subtle, of children in the production of pornography is a grave and widespread evil which the States are amply justified in seeking to eradicate.
Massachusetts' interest in ending such conduct undoubtedly suffices to sustain the statute's ban on encouraging, causing, or permitting persons one has reason to know are under 18 years of age to engage in any live sexual performance or any act that represents sexual conduct, for the purpose of visual representation or reproduction.
The Commonwealth lacks an overriding interest, however, in prohibiting adults from allowing minors to appear naked in photographs, films, and pictures with their genitals or, in the case of adolescent girls, their breasts less than opaquely covered under all circumstances except the production of such works "for a bona fide scientific or medical purpose, or for an educational or cultural purpose for a bona fide school, museum or library." § 29A. One situation where the Commonwealth's interest falls glaringly short was cited by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court: parents might want to photograph their infant children or toddlers in the bath or romping naked on the beach, yet § 29A threatens them with a prison term of between 10 and 20 years or a minimum fine of $10,000 for doing so. And § 29A imposes those penalties even though parents have the same First Amendment interest in taking those photographs as they do in keeping a diary or boasting of their children's antics, and even though their children would not thereby be harmed.
Amicus American Sunbathing Association, a nudist organization with 30,000
Page 491 U. S. 593
members in the United States and Canada, further notes that family photographs taken by its members would subject them to possible prosecution, notwithstanding the protected character of their activity and their denial of any intrinsic connection between public nudity and shame.
Massachusetts likewise lacks a compelling interest in forbidding nonexploitative films or photographs of topless adolescents -- for instance, the poolside shots that are the norm rather than the exception along the Mediterranean seaboard, and that occur with some frequency on this side of the Atlantic as well -- or in barring acting or professional modeling by teenagers that does not involve sexually explicit conduct.
In my view,
the First Amendment also blocks the prohibition of nude posing by minors in connection with the production of works of art not depicting lewd behavior and not specifically prepared, in accordance with § 29A's exclusion, for museums or libraries. Many of the world's great artists -- Degas, Renoir, Donatello, [Footnote 3/2] to name but a few -- have worked from models under 18 years of age, and many acclaimed photographs and films have included nude or partially clad minors. [
Footnote 3/3] The First Amendment rights of models, actors, artists, photographers, and filmmakers are surely not overborne by the Commonwealth's interest in protecting minors from the risk of sexual abuse and exploitation, especially in view of the comprehensive set of laws targeted at those evils. [
Footnote 3/4]
Page 491 U. S. 594
To perpetrating other crimes – This is a false argument. Besides the total lack of any evidence here, there is no reason that exploring your sexuality (a key with many of these issues) and becoming a criminal.
Please complete the sentence... ??
