Do You Know It When You See It? Using Alaska's Child Pornography Statute as a Nationwide Model for Proscribing Morphed Images

In 1982, the United States Supreme Court addressed the tension between free speech and protecting children by holding child pornography outside the scope of First Amendment protections. Critical to the Court’s decision was the fact that child sexual abuse is necessary to produce child pornography. B...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Gray, Daisy
Format: Text
Language:unknown
Published: Duke University School of Law 2021
Subjects:
Law
Online Access:https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/alr/vol38/iss2/4
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1609&context=alr
id ftdukeunivlaw:oai:scholarship.law.duke.edu:alr-1609
record_format openpolar
spelling ftdukeunivlaw:oai:scholarship.law.duke.edu:alr-1609 2023-05-15T13:08:49+02:00 Do You Know It When You See It? Using Alaska's Child Pornography Statute as a Nationwide Model for Proscribing Morphed Images Gray, Daisy 2021-12-30T08:00:00Z application/pdf https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/alr/vol38/iss2/4 https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1609&context=alr unknown Duke University School of Law https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/alr/vol38/iss2/4 https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1609&context=alr Alaska Law Review Law text 2021 ftdukeunivlaw 2023-01-23T21:20:08Z In 1982, the United States Supreme Court addressed the tension between free speech and protecting children by holding child pornography outside the scope of First Amendment protections. Critical to the Court’s decision was the fact that child sexual abuse is necessary to produce child pornography. But what if technological advancement removed child abuse from the equation? The recent phenomena of virtual child pornography and morphed images involve the digital alteration of adult pornography to create the appearance of child pornography. The Alaska legislature amended its child pornography statute in response to these developments, proscribing the possession of morphed images. While the federal government has attempted to regulate this digitally altered child pornography, the majority of states aside from Alaska remain silent on the issue. This Note explores the relationship between free speech jurisprudence and the harm that morphed images pose to children, arguing that Alaska’s child pornography statute is a promising model for other states to address the threat that digital child pornography poses. However, this Note concludes that pornographic material must be intrinsically related to child abuse to justify its prohibition. Accordingly, this Note argues that while a state statutory ban on materials that rely exclusively on digital doctoring is likely unconstitutional, the Alaska statute prohibiting pornographic images that involve the digital editing of an identifiable child’s face onto an adult’s body is constitutional. Other states should thus follow Alaska’s example and enact a statutory ban on morphed images to ensure efforts to protect children keep pace with technological advancement. Text Alaska law review Alaska Duke Law School Scholarship Repository
institution Open Polar
collection Duke Law School Scholarship Repository
op_collection_id ftdukeunivlaw
language unknown
topic Law
spellingShingle Law
Gray, Daisy
Do You Know It When You See It? Using Alaska's Child Pornography Statute as a Nationwide Model for Proscribing Morphed Images
topic_facet Law
description In 1982, the United States Supreme Court addressed the tension between free speech and protecting children by holding child pornography outside the scope of First Amendment protections. Critical to the Court’s decision was the fact that child sexual abuse is necessary to produce child pornography. But what if technological advancement removed child abuse from the equation? The recent phenomena of virtual child pornography and morphed images involve the digital alteration of adult pornography to create the appearance of child pornography. The Alaska legislature amended its child pornography statute in response to these developments, proscribing the possession of morphed images. While the federal government has attempted to regulate this digitally altered child pornography, the majority of states aside from Alaska remain silent on the issue. This Note explores the relationship between free speech jurisprudence and the harm that morphed images pose to children, arguing that Alaska’s child pornography statute is a promising model for other states to address the threat that digital child pornography poses. However, this Note concludes that pornographic material must be intrinsically related to child abuse to justify its prohibition. Accordingly, this Note argues that while a state statutory ban on materials that rely exclusively on digital doctoring is likely unconstitutional, the Alaska statute prohibiting pornographic images that involve the digital editing of an identifiable child’s face onto an adult’s body is constitutional. Other states should thus follow Alaska’s example and enact a statutory ban on morphed images to ensure efforts to protect children keep pace with technological advancement.
format Text
author Gray, Daisy
author_facet Gray, Daisy
author_sort Gray, Daisy
title Do You Know It When You See It? Using Alaska's Child Pornography Statute as a Nationwide Model for Proscribing Morphed Images
title_short Do You Know It When You See It? Using Alaska's Child Pornography Statute as a Nationwide Model for Proscribing Morphed Images
title_full Do You Know It When You See It? Using Alaska's Child Pornography Statute as a Nationwide Model for Proscribing Morphed Images
title_fullStr Do You Know It When You See It? Using Alaska's Child Pornography Statute as a Nationwide Model for Proscribing Morphed Images
title_full_unstemmed Do You Know It When You See It? Using Alaska's Child Pornography Statute as a Nationwide Model for Proscribing Morphed Images
title_sort do you know it when you see it? using alaska's child pornography statute as a nationwide model for proscribing morphed images
publisher Duke University School of Law
publishDate 2021
url https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/alr/vol38/iss2/4
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1609&context=alr
genre Alaska law review
Alaska
genre_facet Alaska law review
Alaska
op_source Alaska Law Review
op_relation https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/alr/vol38/iss2/4
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1609&context=alr
_version_ 1766129980810461184