Talk:PROTECT Act of 2003

message: This article currently only covers one aspect of the Protect act. Below is a complete summery of the act. 
Protect Act summery:
*Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 or PROTECT Act - Amends the Federal criminal code to make the authorized term of supervised release after imprisonment any term of years or life for kidnaping involving a minor and for other specified felony offenses, including sexual abuse.
*Provides for mandatory life imprisonment of a person convicted of a Federal sex offense against a minor if the person has a prior sex conviction in which a minor was the victim, with exceptions.
*Directs the Attorney General to establish a pilot program for volunteer organizations to obtain criminal history background checks on their volunteers.
*Authorizes the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications in the investigation of kidnaping, sex trafficking, and sex offenses against children.
*Eliminates statutes of limitations for child abduction or the sexual or physical abuse of a child.
*Bars pretrial release of persons charged with specified offenses against or involving children.
*Directs the Attorney General to assign a national AMBER Alert Coordinator to facilitate the recovery of missing children.
*Code Adam Act of 2003 - Requires the designated authority for a public building to establish procedures for locating a child who is missing in the building.
*Requires a court, in sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense involving a minor victim, to impose a sentence within the Federal sentencing guidelines range, with exceptions.
*Prohibits making a visual depiction that is a computer-generated image of a minor engaging in specified sexually explicit conduct.
This article should expanded to cover these other aspects of the act. --Cab88 10:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ashibaka tock Save our rectangular corners! 01:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article mentions that "The prohibitions against computer-generated and illustrated child pornography have also been previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, when they were included in the Child Online Protection Act."
However, judging by the relevant Wiki article, COPA has nothing to do with child porn; Rather, it deals with preventing children from being exposed to internet porn in general.  The law that the author had in mind was probably the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996.  It is mentioned in the Lolicon Wiki article, but surprisingly has no Wiki article of its own (yet).
:Sorry, about six months ago a writer for some news site mixed them up, and ever since I have been confused myself. Ashibaka tock 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  COPA vs CPPA 

message: This is awesome!  It makes things illegal even if the laws of the country you're in say otherwise.  Maybe soon Americans traveling to places like Amsterdam will be subject to the US drug laws too.  I can't wait! --George Soros
:The entire act is some kind of handout. Obviously Congress would not pass such silly things, some of which have previously been ruled unconstitutional, unless if all the yes voters were getting free cake and ice cream or something. 24.91.16.229 05:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess "When in rome act as roman" is discarded in the US.77.127.247.204 (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

text: I hope the democrats rising to power will anull most of this zeolotry ridden 'moral' code and not just accept it as something they couldn't do themselves because of their non-conservative nature. --AnYoNe! 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless of course if your 18 year old son had sex with a 14 year old, right? --AnYoNe! 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: The article lists both "Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in (Miller test) obscene OR engaged in sex acts" and "Does not include drawings,cartoons,and /or comic satire".  Which is true?  Or does the latter mean "does not include drawings, cartoons, or comics meant as satire"? Gregly 15:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "any representation that resembles a minor" engaging in sexual conduct, so far, there has been one conviction of an individual possessing erotic underage cartoon figures engaging in sexual acts, however, this could be judged by the supreme court to decide if cartoon figures do or do not carry enough resemblance with real underages, falling into artistic media and therefore be extempt from the act.201.51.153.142 02:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The law's definition of indistinguishable is what does not include drawings.  I am removing the last bullet as it is confusing to the casual reader.  I may add the information back in later, but it is not critical.  Essentially the law makes all depictions of children, drawn or otherwise, engaged in a sex act illegal. - 67.166.139.181 05:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory bullet points 

message: From the article:
:For the purposes of this law, illicit sexual conduct includes commercial sex with anyone under 18, and all sex with anyone under 18.
If "all sex with anyone under 18" is covered, then what is the need for the specific mention of "commercial sex" with exactly the same age limit? Loganberry (Talk) 23:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This looks a bit odd 

message: can we actually discuss truth in Domain names or have a separate article for that as all links to that link to here and this article doesn't explain it at all 
Tydoni (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Truth in Domain Names

message: I removed the following uncited statement: "However, the provisions of the Protect Act are distinct, since they establish the requirement of showing obscenity as defined by the Miller Test, which was not an element of the 1996 law.". It is uncited and factual incorrect. The protect act does not appear to define obscenity the same way as the Miller test does. The Miller test has three prongs, all of which must be met, in order for something to be obscene. They are:
* Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[3]
The Protect Act text however defines obscenity slightly differently as follows:
 '``(b) Additional Offenses.--Any person who, in a circumstance 
 described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of 
 any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
            ``(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit 
        conduct; and
            ``(B) is obscene; or
            ``(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a 
        minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic 
        abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-
        genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of 
        the same or opposite sex; and
            ``(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or 
        scientific value;'
As you can see, the above text appears to omit the first prong of the miller test which states that "the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work in question, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.". It also admits the words " in a patently offensive way" which are a part of the second prong. Some might argue the any depiction of child sexual acts even in drawings, cartoons, etc. is by it's very nature "patently offensive" but since the Miller test includes those words then the protect acts definition of obscenity would need them too to be in compliance with the Miller ruling. For the above reason I request the removed statement not be put back. Most likely there needs to be a statement added that describes how the act attempts to ban obscene porn but point of that it's definition obscenity is not in compliance with the Miller case and thus may not be constitutional (as per the 1st amendment). --50.152.139.176 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROTECT act is not in compliance with Miller obscenity test 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on PROTECT Act of 2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090529205817/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C117.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C117.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528025530/http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C109A.txt to http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C109A.txt
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2057/Issue%202/Davis.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1242
*Added  tag to http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/108/s/s151enr.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :
First, what does the part after OR say that isn't already in the first part?  
Second, what is the subject of the first are? —Tamfang (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Just clarified it. It's not the same obscene condition; the alternate test removed the community standards part of the Miller test. Sandtalon (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ungrammatical OR redundant