When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. I know it when I see it - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

    This simple phrase, embedded in a plurality opinion, carries with it many of the conflicts and inconsistencies that continue to plague American obscenity law. In effect, "I know it when I see it" can still be paraphrased and unpacked as: "I know it when I see it, and someone else will know it when they see it, but what they see and what they ...

  3. Child pornography laws in the United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in...

    [21] [22] He was also convicted of possessing child pornography involving real children. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. [23] On December 18, 2008, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. [24] The court stated that "it is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually ...

  4. PROTECT Act of 2003 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

    The first conviction of a person found to have violated the sections of the act relating to virtual child pornography was Dwight Whorley of Virginia, who used computers at the Virginia Employment Commission to download "Japanese anime style cartoons of children engaged in explicit sexual conduct with adults" [29] alleged to depict "children ...

  5. Stanley v. Georgia - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia

    A California court convicted him under state law, and when Roth appealed the decision, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. In the majority decision, written by Justice Brennan, a new test was created for determining what can be considered obscene (the Hicklin test was used since a ruling in 1857, which the Court abandoned in Roth ).

  6. Nelson v. Colorado - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_v._Colorado

    Nelson v. Colorado, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. [1] In a 7-1 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that a state had no right to keep fines and other money based on an invalid conviction. [2]

  7. Trump verdict was about one thing: Democrats being able to ...

    www.aol.com/trump-verdict-one-thing-democrats...

    We love to hear from Texans with opinions on the news — and to publish those views in the Opinion section. • Letters should be no more than 150 words. • Writers should submit letters only ...

  8. Lockhart v. United States (2016) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhart_v._United_States...

    Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. 347 (2016), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the interpretation of a federal statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2) states that a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography is subject to a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence if they have "a prior conviction...under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual ...

  9. There is only the Donald Trump Party, full of sycophants to a megalomaniac. People who 10 years ago had GOP governance on their minds — which they sometimes used to think for themselves — now ...