Lysander: /* Overview */

2020-06-25T23:15:16Z

Overview

Lysander: Lysander moved page PROTECT Act to PROTECT Act of 2003

2015-03-09T05:12:37Z

Lysander: Created page with "The '''PROTECT Act of 2003''' ({{USPL|108|21}}, 117 Stat. 650, S. 151, enacted April 30, 2003) is a United States law with the stated intent of preventing child abuse.
2015-03-09T05:12:31Z

Created page with "The '''PROTECT Act of 2003''' ({{USPL|108|21}}, 117 Stat. 650, S. 151, enacted April 30, 2003) is a United States law with the stated intent of preventing child abuse.<ref..."

New page
The '''PROTECT Act of 2003''' ({{USPL|108|21}}, 117 Stat. 650, S. 151, enacted April 30, 2003) is a United States law with the stated intent of preventing [[child abuse]].<ref name=DOJfactsheet>{{cite web|url=http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/April/03_ag_266.htm |title=Fact Sheet PROTECT Act |publisher=Department of Justice|date=April 30, 2003}}</ref><ref name=fulltext>{{cite web |url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:s151: |title=Full Text of S.151 - PROTECT Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)|publisher=Library of Congress}}</ref> "PROTECT" is a [[backronym]] which stands for "'''P'''rosecutorial '''R'''emedies and '''O'''ther '''T'''ools to end the '''E'''xploitation of '''C'''hildren '''T'''oday".

The PROTECT Act incorporates the '''Truth in Domain Names Act''' ('''TDNA''') of 2003 (originally two separate Bills, submitted by Senator [[Orrin Hatch]] and Congressman [[Mike Pence]]), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2252(B)(b).<ref name=Aspen1>{{cite book|title=The law of electronic commerce|author=Jane K. Winn and Benjamin Wright|edition=4th|publisher=Aspen Publishers Online|year=2000|isbn=9780735516489|pages=11–21|volume=2008–02 Supp.}}</ref>

== Overview ==
The law has the following effects:<ref name=DOJfactsheet/><ref name=govtracksummary>{{cite web|title=Track.us. S. 151--108th Congress (2003): Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 |publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) |url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-151&tab=summary|accessdate=2008-09-01}}</ref>

Provides for mandatory life imprisonment of [[sex offense]]s against a minor if the offender has had a prior conviction of abuse against a minor, with some exceptions.
Establishes a program to obtain criminal history background checks for volunteer organizations.
Authorizes wiretapping and monitoring of other communications in all cases related to child abuse or [[kidnapping]].
Eliminates [[Statute of limitations|statutes of limitations]] for child abduction or child abuse.
Bars pretrial release of persons charged with specified offenses against or involving children.
Assigns a national [[AMBER Alert]] Coordinator.
Implemented Suzanne's Law. Named after Suzanne Lyall, a missing college student of the [[University of New York at Albany]], the law eliminates waiting periods before law enforcement agencies will investigate reports of [[missing person]]s ages 18–21. These reports are also filed with the [[NCIC]].
Prohibits computer-generated [[child pornography]] when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the [[Miller test]] of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors).
Maximum sentence of 5 years for possession, 10 years for distribution.
Authorizes fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad, with or without the intent of engaging in such sexual misconduct.<ref>Chaninat & Leeds [http://www.thailawforum.com/sex-crimes-in-thailand.html Sex Crimes in Thailand Part 1]: US Sex Laws Abroad. Thailand Law Forum, September 2009</ref>
Incorporated other proposed legislation existing at the time as:
the [[Federal Protective Service (United States)#Home and Family Security|Code Adam Act of 2003]], (Title III, Subtitle D)
the [[Domain name#Truth in Domain Names Act|Truth in Domain Names]] proposed language ([[s:Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003/Title V/Subtitle B|Title V, Subtitle B]])
the Secure Authentication Feature and Enhanced Identification Defense Act of 2003, also cited as the SAFE ID Act, ([[s:Secure Authentication Feature and Enhanced Identification Defense Act of 2003|Title VI, Section 607.]])
the [[Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act|Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003]] ([[s:Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003|Title VI, Section 608.]])
For the purposes of this law, illicit sexual conduct includes commercial and non-commercial sex with anyone under 18.<ref>U.S. Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1467.html</ref><ref name=fulltext/><ref name=18usc117>United States Code, [http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C117.txt Title 18 Chapter 117], 18 USC Sec. 2423, Subsections (c) and (f)</ref><ref name=18usc109a>United States Code, [http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C109A.txt Title 18 Chapter 109A], 18 USC Sec. 2243, Subsection (a)</ref><ref name="juryinstruct-commerce">[http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm02180.htm Jury Instruction -- Affecting Interstate or Foreign Commerce]</ref> Previous US law was less strict, only punishing those having sex either in contravention of local laws OR in commerce (prostitution); but did not prohibit non-commercial sex with, for example, a 14 year-old if such sex was legal in the foreign territory.{{citation needed|date = December 2013}}

The PROTECT Act mandated that the [[United States Attorney General]] promulgate new regulations to enforce the 2257 recordkeeping regulation, colloquially known as the '[[2257 Regulations]]'. The [[Free Speech Coalition]] has filed a lawsuit against the [[United States Department of Justice]] claiming the 2257 Regulations are [[unconstitutional]].{{citation needed|date = December 2013}}

The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as ''virtual child pornography''.<ref name=DOJfactsheet/><ref name=fulltext/><ref name=govtracksummary/> Provisions against virtual child pornography in the [[Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996]] had been ruled unconstitutional by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]] in its 2002 decision, ''Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition''.

The act was signed into law by [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W. Bush]] on April 30, 2003.<ref name=whitehouse>{{cite web| url=http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030430-6.html |title=President Signs PROTECT Act: President's Remarks Upon Signing of S. 151, the Protect Act |date=April 30, 2003|publisher=, White House Office of the Press Secretary}}</ref>

==Application of the Act==
On April 6, 2006, in ''[[United States v. Williams]]'', the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals]] ruled that one component of the PROTECT Act, the "pandering provision" codified at {{UnitedStatesCode|18|2252A}}(a)(3)(B) of the [[United States Code]], violated the [[First Amendment of the United States Constitution|First Amendment]]. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly

<blockquote>advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.</blockquote>

The ''Williams'' court held that although the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.{{citation needed|date = December 2013}}

The Department of Justice appealed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in May 2008 and upheld this portion of the act.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-694.pdf|accessdate=2008-05-19|format=PDF|title=Decision in US v. Williams}}</ref>

The first conviction of a person found to have violated the sections of the act relating to virtual child pornography, [[Dwight Whorley]] of Virginia, was upheld in a 2-1 panel decision of the [[Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals]] in December 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/064288.P.pdf|accessdate=2010-01-16|format=PDF|title=Decision in US v. Whorley}}</ref> This decision was consistent with the [[Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition|U.S. Supreme Court]] ruling in A''shcroft v. Free Speech Coalition'' in which the Supreme Court held that virtual child pornography was protected free speech, provided that the virtual depictions are not obscene. Obscenity, including obscene depictions of children, either virtual or real, is unprotected speech. (Whorley was also convicted of offenses in connection with pornographic depictions of real children.)

Also in, 2008, [[Christopher Handley]] pled guilty to charges related to the PROTECT Act, in exchange for a six month plea deal. He was facing a maximum sentence of up to twenty years. While not convicted by a jury, he was the first person charged—and convicted—under the PROTECT Act for the lone act of possessing art deemed obscene. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys noted that the plea deal was due to the high risk of a constitutional challenge, and the federal government agreed that Handley would not be required to register as a sex offender. {{citation needed|date = December 2013}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== Further reading ==
* {{cite journal|author=Christopher G. Clark|title=The Truth in Domain Names Act of 2003 and a Preventative Measure to Combat Typosquatting|journal=[[Cornell Law Review]]|volume=89|issue=6|pages=1476|date=September 2004|ssrn=754524}}
* {{cite journal|author=Lisa D. Davis|title=Trapping Mousetrappers with the Truth in Domain Names Act of 2003: The constitutionality of prohibiting "typosquatting" on the Internet|journal=[[Alabama Law Review]]|date=2005–2006|pages=521–544|volume=57|issue=2|publisher=[[University of Alabama]]|url=http://law.ua.edu/lawreview/articles/Volume%2057/Issue%202/Davis.pdf|format=[[Portable Document Format|PDF]]}}

==External links==
* [http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/108/s/s151enr.pdf Text of the Act] at [[GovTrack]]
* [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.151: Text of the Act] at [[THOMAS]]
* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0415128p.pdf Text of 11th Circuit decision in United States v. Williams]
* [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-151 Legislative history] at [[GovTrack]]

PROTECT Act of 2003 - Revision history

Lysander: /* Overview */

Lysander: Lysander moved page PROTECT Act to PROTECT Act of 2003