New Child Porn Laws: Part 3

“N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4. Endangering Welfare of Children” was amended as well.

The first change involved a broadening of the definition of “Item depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child.” The definition now includes “a photograph, film, video, an electronic, electromagnetic or digital recording, an image stored or maintained in a computer program or file or in a portion of a file, or any other reproduction or reconstruction which “portrays a child in a sexually suggestive manner”, as opposed to only including depictions of “a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act.” There will undoubtedly be litigation concerning what qualifies as “a sexually suggestive manner”, along with issues related to due process notice and first amendment rights.

The new statute attempts to clarify what is meant by “Portray a child in a sexually suggestive manner” with the following definition:

(a) to depict a child’s less than completely and opaquely covered intimate parts, as defined in N.J.S.2C:14-1, in a manner that, by means of the posing, composition, format, or animated sensual details, emits sensuality with sufficient impact to concentrate prurient interest on the child; or

(b) to depict any form of contact with a child’s intimate parts, as defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1, in a manner that, by means of the posing, composition, format, or animated sensual details, emits sensuality with sufficient impact to concentrate prurient interest on the child; or

(c) to otherwise depict a child for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who may view the depiction where the depiction does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Note that the plain language definition of the term “prurient” is “perverted”. The term “prurient” appears to have originated in historical judicial opinions dealing with First Amendment issues. First Amendment issues can be exceedingly complicated and confusing, as evidenced by U.S, Supreme Court precedent that treats political campaign contributions as “protected speech.”