Opinion: Child porn laws too indiscriminate

‘ ‘ ‘ Imagine, if you will, that you are a collector of Japanese art, specifically anime and… ‘ ‘ ‘ Imagine, if you will, that you are a collector of Japanese art, specifically anime and manga, living in Iowa. One day, after picking up a package of manga comics ordered from Japan, you’re pulled over by the police, followed to your house, and your collection of thousands of books and movies is raided and seized by officers from the postal inspector’s office, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation and officers from the Glenwood Police Department. You now face up to 20 years in prison for the possession of art. ‘ ‘ ‘ This is exactly what happened to Christopher Handley, a 38-year-old collector whose anime and manga collection was seized by police after the postal inspector searched one of Handley’s packages under warrant and found ‘objectionable content.’ ‘ ‘ ‘ Handley was charged with the reception and possession of ‘obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children’ under U.S. Code 1466A, which forbids any art that is or appears to be of children engaging in explicit sexual acts. ‘ ‘ ‘ On the one hand, it’s hard to see why this is important. Handley was clearly in possession of art that could be construed to show children engaged in sexual activity ‘- regardless of whether or not it actually is a depiction of children and whether or not those children exist in real life ‘mdash; for the record, they aren’t and they don’t. Protecting children is something worth doing, right? Thus, Handley should go to jail for possession of child pornography, and that’s the end of it. ‘ ‘ ‘ Not so fast. The thing that’s disturbing about this case is not that Handley possessed art that many people may find distasteful. It’s that he was arrested for receiving it through the mail. He had no intent to distribute the comics, and the only place he was taking them was back to his home. ‘ ‘ ‘ Handley isn’t even on trial for possession ‘- legal precedent has stated that obscene material is legal under the Fourth Amendment so long as it isn’t distributed outside one’s own home. In other words, if Handley had drawn the pictures himself, he wouldn’t have been arrested. ‘ ‘ ‘ There’s not much question that Handley sent material through the mail, and if the court deems it obscene then he has little defense. In that respect, at least the case is pretty much open-and-shut. But the Handley case is indicative of a deeper problem with the laws that regulate child pornography. ‘ ‘ ‘ For instance, last week six minors in the Greensburg Salem school district were charged with distribution, production and possession of child pornography. According to police, three girls between ages 14 and 16 took nude and semi-nude photographs of themselves on their cell phones, then sent the pictures to male classmates, who were also minors. The Westmoreland County police department charged all six teens, who will now go up against the county juvenile court and likely face time in detention for violation of the school district’s electronic devices policy. ‘ ‘ ‘ The intent of child pornography laws are clear ‘mdash; to protect minors from sexual predators. But when we start enforcing these laws in a way that they harm people who don’t deserve it, then that’s a problem with the law, not the people under its jurisdiction. ‘ ‘ ‘ Think about it in terms of speed limits. Speed limits are laws, they’re legal limits that the government sets relative to the safety of the road, and they’re designed to protect drivers and other people on the road. But people don’t obey speed limits all the time, and if a cop pulls someone over they have to use their discretion to decide whether or not to issue a ticket. That way, someone posing a threat to the public is penalized, but someone who just went a few clicks more than the limit can get off with a warning. ‘ ‘ ‘ The cases I mentioned above are the equivalent of going 3 mph more than the limit. Neither Handley nor the minors in Greensburg Salem were harming anyone with their actions ‘mdash; and in Handley’s case, nobody could have possibly been hurt, as the potentially obscene material he possessed was just art for his own personal collection. As for the teens in Greensburg, they made a childish mistake and are being punished for it inordinately ‘mdash; a warning would have been more than enough. ‘ ‘ ‘ I firmly believe that these laws have only the best intentions, and I’m sure that in some cases they’ve been used to put people behind bars that genuinely deserved it. But Handley is not one of those people. The only thing he did wrong was to offend the moral sensibilities of a postal inspector and have the bad luck to run up against a law that is unfortunately indiscriminate in whom it hurts. E-mail Richard at rab53@pitt.edu.