АҚШ-тың балаларға қатысты зорлық-зомбылық және қылмыстарға қарсы заңдары

United States law regarding child abuse and violent crimes against children

The PROTECT Act of 2003 (, 117 Stat. 650, S. 151, enacted April 30, 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". The PROTECT Act incorporates the Truth in Domain Names Act (TDNA) of 2003 (originally two separate bills, submitted by Senator Orrin Hatch and Congressman Mike Pence), codified at 18 U. S. C. § 2252(B)(b).

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, Congress started working on a bill to address the court's concerns almost immediately. That same day, Representative Mark Foley stated that "The high court sided with pedophiles over children." The earliest known mention of the decision comes from April 17, 2002 in the Congressional Record, one day after the court's decision by Rep. Foley. This was followed by numerous other remarks over the next few days.

The Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002, H. R. 4623, was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith on April 30, 2002 and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary that same day. The bill passed the House by a vote of 413 8 on a motion to suspend the rules (1 representative voted present). It was received in the Senate the following day and committee hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee were held on October 2; no report was issued, and the bill did not pass the Senate. A similar bill, S. 2511, was introduced in the Senate on May 14, 2002, and was likewise referred to the Judiciary Committee. Both S. 2511 and H. R. 4623 expired at the end of the 107th Congress.

On April 6, 2006, in United States v. Williams, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT Act, the "pandering provision" codified at (a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly

advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The Williams court held that although the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Based on this determination, the court held § 2252A(a)(3)(B) to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further stated that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable. However, the court did not reverse its holding in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition as to virtual child pornography which is not obscene under the Miller standard.

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" His conviction was upheld in a 2–1 panel decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2008. This decision was consistent with the U. S. Supreme Court ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in which the Supreme Court held that virtual child pornography was protected free speech, provided that the virtual depictions are not obscene. Obscenity, including obscene depictions of children, either virtual or real, is unprotected speech. (Whorley was also previously convicted of offenses in connection with pornographic depictions of real children.) Also in 2008, Christopher Handley, a "prolific collector" of manga, pleaded guilty to charges related to the PROTECT Act, in exchange for a six month plea deal, five years of probation, and forfeiture of his collection of manga and anime that had been seized by police. Handley still faces an obscenity charge. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys noted that the plea deal was due to the high risk of a constitutional challenge, and the federal government agreed that Handley would not be required to register as a sex offender. A later ruling in United States v. Dean challenged the Handley overbreadth ruling because the Handley ruling did not prove that the sections had "substantial overbreadth".

According to Adler, Delohery, and Charles Brownstein, "the current law raises concerns for creators, publishers, and collectors of various forms of entertainment (including, but not limited to, comics/manga, video games, and fine art)." Bell argues that the PROTECT Act should be reexamined by Congress because it infringes on the First Amendment's right to free expression.