United States v. United States District Court for Central District of California Los Angeles California’s Empirical Analysis
858 F.2d 534 · 1988
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 5 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994), United States v. Thomas (1990)
53 federal appellate · 5 district · 12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 17 · 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 2252 · 18 U.S.C. § 2256 · 18 U.S.C. § 3731 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Broadrick v. Oklahoma · Hamling v. United States · Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · Miller v. California
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he first amendment does not permit the imposition of criminal sanctions on the basis of strict liability where doing so would seriously chill protected speech. While Congress may take steps to punish severely those who knowingly subject minors to sexual exploitation, and even those who commit such abuse recklessly or negligently, it may not impose very serious criminal sanctions on those who have diligently investigated the matter and formed a reasonable good-faith belief that they are engaged in activities protected by the first amendment.... [Ijmposition of major criminal sanctions on these defendants without allowing them to interpose a reasonable mistake of age defense would choke off protected speech.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a defendant's awareness of the subject's minority is not an element of the offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) knowingly transports or ships in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mails any visual depiction, if— (A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) such visual depiction is of such conduct; (2) knowingly receives, or distributes any visual depiction that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or which contains materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported, by any means including by computer, or knowingly reproduces any visual depiction for distribution in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or through the mails, if— (A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) such visual depiction is of such conduct; ****** shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. (b)(1) Whoever violates paragraph (1), (2), or (3)of subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, but, if such person has a prior conviction under this section, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than five years nor more than fifteen years.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.