United States v. Handley

Last updated

United States v. Handley
Court United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
Full case nameUnited States of America v. Christopher S. Handley
DecidedJuly 2, 2008
Docket nos.1:07-cr-00030
Citation564 F. Supp. 2d 996
Court membership
Judge sitting James E. Gritzner

United States v. Handley, 564 F. Supp. 2d 996 (2008), was a court case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa involving obscenity charges stemming from the importation of manga featuring pornographic depictions of fictional minors.

Contents

Although Handley ultimately pled guilty, District Judge James E. Gritzner ruled that 18 U.S.C.   § 1466A(a)(2) and 18 U.S.C.   § 1466A(b)(2) were constitutionally infirm because those subsections restrict protected speech and do not require the visual depictions be obscene. He also held that the determination of what constituted obscenity under 18 U.S.C.   § 1466A(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C.   § 1466A(b)(1) was to be made by the trier of fact. Referring to previous U.S. Supreme Court cases on obscenity and child pornography, he held, " Free Speech Coalition made clear that banned material must meet either the Ferber or Miller standards. There is no dispute the images in this case do not involve real children, thus Ferber is inapplicable." [1] However, Gritzner's ruling was challenged by later case law in United States v. Dean.

Arrest

In May 2006, postal inspectors attained a search warrant for the home of 38-year-old Iowa comic collector Christopher Handley, who was suspected of importing "cartoon images of objectionable content" from Japan. [2] Authorities seized 1,200 items from Handley's home, of which about 80 were deemed "drawings of children being sexually abused". Many of the works had been originally published in Comic LO , a lolicon manga anthology magazine. [3]

In October 2008, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund became involved in the case as a consultant and financial supporter, with Eric Chase of its United Defense Group providing Handley's legal defense. [2] Chase argued, "there are no actual children. It was all very crude images from a comic book." [4] This was related to obscenity charges involving pornography depicting minors, being applied to a fictional comic book. On this, Chase said, "This prosecution has profound implications in limiting the First Amendment for art and artists, and comics in particular that are on the cutting edge of creativity. It misunderstands the nature of avant-garde art in its historical perspective and is a perversion of anti-obscenity laws." [5] Charles Brownstein of the CBLDF commented: "The government is prosecuting a private collector for the possession of art. In the past, CBLDF has had to defend the First Amendment rights of retailers and artists, but never before have we experienced the federal government attempting to strip a citizen of his freedom because he owned comic books." [6]

Trial

United States district court Judge James E. Gritzner [7] was petitioned to drop some of the charges, but instead ruled that two parts of the PROTECT Act criminalizing certain depictions without having to go through the Miller test were unconstitutionally overbroad. [8] Handley still faced an obscenity charge. [9] The motion was initially heard on June 24, 2008, [10] but was not widely publicized prior to the Fund's involvement. CBLDF board member Neil Gaiman remarked on how this could apply to his work The Doll's House , saying, "if you bought that comic, you could be arrested for it? That's just deeply wrong. Nobody was hurt. The only thing that was hurt were ideas." [11] [12]

Sentencing

Handley entered a guilty plea in May 2009; at Chase's recommendation he accepted a plea bargain believing it highly unlikely a jury would acquit him if shown the images in question. [13]

In February 2010, under the terms of plea, Handley was sentenced to six months in jail. Without the plea, he would have faced a maximum of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. [14] [15] Upon release he was required to undergo three years' supervised release and five years' probation. Under the plea agreement, he is excluded from being required to register as a sex offender. [3]

Later case law

United States v. Dean, a 2011 case in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, called the overbreadth ruling into question because the Handley case failed to prove that 1466A a(2) and b(2) were substantially overbroad in the context of a facial challenge. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

The Millertest, also called the three-prong obscenity test, is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comstock Act of 1873</span> United States anti-obscenity law

The Comstock Actof 1873 refers to a series of current provisions in Federal law that generally criminalize the involvement of the United States Postal Service, its officers, or a common carrier in conveying obscene matter, crime-inciting matter, or certain abortion-related matter. The Comstock Act is largely codified across title 18 of the United States Code and was enacted beginning in 1872 with the attachment of an extraneous rider to a postal service reconsolidation bill. Amended multiple times since initial enactment, with most recently in 1996, the Act is nonetheless often associated with U.S. Postal Inspector and anti-vice activist Anthony Comstock.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comic Book Legal Defense Fund</span> American nonprofit

The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF) is an American non-profit organization formed in 1986 to protect the First Amendment rights of comics creators, publishers, and retailers covering legal expenses. Charles Brownstein served as the organization's executive director from 2002 until his resignation in 2020.

Castillo v. Texas, 79 S.W. 3d 817 was a controversial Texan court decision in which Jesus Castillo, an employee of a comic book store in Dallas, Texas, was charged with two counts of "display of obscenity", and convicted for one, after selling adult comics to an adult.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PROTECT Act of 2003</span> United States law regarding child abuse and violent crimes against children

The PROTECT Act of 2003 is a United States law with the stated intent of preventing child abuse as well as investigating and prosecuting violent crimes against children. "PROTECT" is a backronym which stands for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today".

Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.

<i>United States v. Extreme Associates, Inc.</i>

United States v. Extreme Associates, 431 F.3d 150, is a 2005 U.S. law case revolving around issues of obscenity. Extreme Associates, a pornography company owned by Rob Zicari and his wife Lizzy Borden, was prosecuted by the federal government for alleged distribution of obscenity across state lines. After several years of legal proceedings, the matter ended on March 11, 2009, with a plea agreement by Rob Zicari and Lizzy Borden.

Gordon Lee was an American comic book store owner from Rome, Georgia, who is most famous for having been charged with distributing obscene material to a minor in connection with the Free Comic Book Day on Halloween, 2004. The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund was heavily involved in Lee's defense. Lee was previously convicted on another obscenity charge.

Censorship in Japan has taken many forms throughout the history of the country. While Article 21 of the Constitution of Japan guarantees freedom of expression and prohibits formal censorship, effective censorship of obscene content does exist and is justified by the Article 175 of the Criminal Code of Japan. Historically, the law has been interpreted in different ways—recently it has been interpreted to mean that all pornography must be at least partly censored, and a few arrests have been made based on this law.

United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did in fact not possess child pornography with which to trade.

Legal frameworks around fictional pornography depicting minors vary depending on country and nature of the material involved. Laws against production, distribution and consumption of child pornography generally separate images into three categories: real, pseudo, and virtual. Pseudo-photographic child pornography is produced by digitally manipulating non-sexual images of real minors to make pornographic material. Virtual child pornography depicts purely fictional characters. "Fictional pornography depicting minors", as covered in this article, includes these latter two categories, whose legalities vary by jurisdiction, and often differ with each other and with the legality of real child pornography.

An obscenity is any utterance or act that strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time. It is derived from the Latin obscēnus, obscaenus, "boding ill; disgusting; indecent", of uncertain etymology. Generally, the term can be used to indicate strong moral repugnance and outrage in expressions such as "obscene profits" and "the obscenity of war". As a legal term, it usually refers to descriptions and depictions of people engaged in sexual and excretory activity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Child pornography laws in the United States</span>

In the United States, child pornography is illegal under federal law and in all states and is punishable by up to life imprisonment and fines of up to $250,000. U.S. laws regarding child pornography are virtually always enforced and amongst the harshest in the world. The Supreme Court of the United States has found child pornography to be outside the protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Federal sentencing guidelines on child pornography differentiate between production, distribution, and purchasing/receiving, and also include variations in severity based on the age of the child involved in the materials, with significant increases in penalties when the offense involves a prepubescent child or a child under the age of 18. U.S. law distinguishes between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene, whereas the first does not require a finding of obscenity.

Simulated child pornography is child pornography depicting what appear to be minors but which is produced without their direct involvement.

The production, sale, distribution, and commercialization of child pornography in Japan is illegal under the Act on Punishment of Activities Relating to Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, and the Protection of Children (1999), and is punishable by a maximum penalty of five years in prison and/or a fine of ¥5,000,000. Simple possession of child pornography was made illegal by an amendment to the act in 2014. Virtual child pornography, which depicts wholly-fictional characters, is legal to produce and possess.

The Dost test is a six-factor guideline established in 1986 in the United States district court case United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828. The case involved 22 nude or semi-nude photographs of females aged 10–14 years old. The undeveloped film containing the images was mailed to a photo processing company in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California.

<i>United States v. Kilbride</i>

United States v. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240 is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejecting an appeal from two individuals convicted of violating the Can Spam Act and United States obscenity law. The defendants were appealing convictions on 8 counts from the District Court of Arizona for distributing pornographic spam via email. The second count which the defendants were found guilty of involved the falsification of the "From" field of email headers, which is illegal to do multiple times in commercial settings under 18 USC § 1037(a)(3). The case is particularly notable because of the majority opinion on obscenity, in which Judge Fletcher writes an argument endorsing the use of a national community obscenity standard for the internet.

Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U.S. 205 (1964), is an in rem United States Supreme Court decision on First Amendment questions relating to the forfeiture of obscene material. By a 7–2 margin, the Court held that a seizure of the books was unconstitutional, since no hearing had been held on whether the books were obscene, and it reversed a Kansas Supreme Court decision that upheld the seizure.

The Comic Legends Legal Defense Fund (CLLDF) is a Canadian nonprofit organization, created in 1987 to protect the free speech rights of comics creators, publishers, retailers, and readers, by helping to cover legal expenses in the defense of cases where its directors feel those issues are at stake.

United States obscenity law deals with the regulation or suppression of what is considered obscenity and therefore not protected speech or expression under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In the United States, discussion of obscenity typically relates to defining what pornography is obscene, as well as to issues of freedom of speech and of the press, otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Issues of obscenity arise at federal and state levels. State laws operate only within the jurisdiction of each state, and there are differences among such laws. Federal statutes ban obscenity and child pornography produced with real children. Federal law also bans broadcasting of "indecent" material during specified hours.

References

  1. ↑ U.S. v. Handley, 564F.Supp.2d.996 (S.D. Iowa2 July 2008).
  2. 1 2 "CBLDF to Serve as Special Consultant in PROTECT Act Manga Case". AnimeNewsNetwork. October 9, 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  3. 1 2 "Christopher Handley Sentenced to 6 Months for 'Obscene' Manga (Updated)". AnimeNewsNetwork. February 11, 2010. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  4. ↑ "Lawyer Indicates Manga in Iowa Obscenity Case are Yaoi". AnimeNewsNetwork. November 24, 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  5. ↑ "CBLDF to Serve as Special Consultant in PROTECT Act Manga Case". Anime News Network . October 9, 2008. Retrieved October 11, 2023.
  6. ↑ "CBLDF in Manga Obscenity Case, Assisting Defense of Collector". ICV2. October 10, 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  7. ↑ Marc H. Greenberg (2014). "Obscenity law and the First Amendment". Comic art, creativity and the law. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 154. ISBN   9781781954935.
  8. ↑ US v. Handley, vol. 564, July 2, 2008, p. 996, retrieved May 4, 2020
  9. ↑ "Iowa Collector Charged for Allegedly Obscene Manga". AnimeNewsNetwork. October 10, 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  10. ↑ "Order, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. CHRISTOPHER S. HANDLEY, defendant" (PDF). United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. July 2, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 19, 2008.
  11. ↑ Jennifer Vineyard (November 24, 2008). "Neil Gaiman On The 'Obscenity' Of Manga Collector Christopher Handley's Trial". Splash Page. Archived from the original on December 5, 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  12. ↑ "Why defend freedom of icky speech?". Neil Gaiman. December 1, 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  13. ↑ Annalee Newitz (May 28, 2009). "Manga Collection Ruled 'Child Pornography' By US Court". io9 . Archived from the original on October 21, 2015. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  14. ↑ "What Today Is..." Neil Gaiman. February 14, 2010. Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  15. ↑ David Kravets (February 12, 2010). "'Obscene' U.S. Manga Collector Jailed 6 Months" . Retrieved August 19, 2015.
  16. ↑ US v. Dean, vol. 635, March 16, 2011, p. 1200, retrieved May 4, 2020
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.