Opinion ID: 1212854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sexually Explicit Material Restriction

Text: District courts generally must make factual findings to justify special terms of supervised release. Voelker, 489 F.3d at 144. If a court does not explain its reasons, we may nevertheless affirm the condition if we can `ascertain any viable basis for the ... restriction in the record before the District Court ... on our own.' Id. (citation omitted). While the District Court did not specifically explain its rationale in barring Thielemann from sexually explicit materials, the record clearly shows that the District Court's purpose was to rehabilitate Thielemann, to protect children, and to deter future criminal activity. We have held that District Court[s] could, perfectly consonant with the Constitution, restrict [a defendant's] access to sexually oriented materials if, like any other restriction, the term had a clear nexus to the goals of supervised release. United States v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251, 267 (3d Cir.2001). However, there are First Amendment implications for a ban that extends to explicit material involving adults. [13] Voelker, 489 F.3d at 151. When a ban restricts access to material protected by the First Amendment, [14] courts must balance the § 3553(a) considerations against the serious First Amendment concerns endemic in such a restriction. Id. [15] It is evident that the District Court's restriction in this case would protect children from the predatory conduct of Thielemann and thus could contribute to Thielemann's rehabilitation. Accordingly, the purposes served by the Special Condition far outweigh any Constitutional concerns raised in Loy and Voelker. In Loy, we rejected a condition which prohibited Loy from possessing pornography. Loy had pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography. His terms of supervised release included a provision prohibiting him from possessing all forms of pornography, including legal adult pornography. Loy, 237 F.3d at 253. We noted that restrictions on sexual materials were generally permissible because almost any restriction upon sexually explicit material may well aid in rehabilitation and protection of the public. Only in the exceptional case, where a ban could apply to any art form that employs nudity, will a defendant's exercise of First Amendment rights be unconstitutionally circumscribed or chilled. Id. at 266. However, after discussing the mercurial meaning of the term pornography, we held that the provision was (1) overly broad and violated the First Amendment because it might apply to a wide swath of work ranging from serious art to ubiquitous advertising, and that it was (2) unconstitutionally vague because its breadth is unclear. Id. at 267. Nonetheless, we suggested that the Constitution would not forbid a more tightly defined restriction on legal, adult pornography, perhaps one that ... borrowed applicable language from the federal statutory definition of child pornography located at 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8). Id. Several years later, the District Court in Voelker took heed of our suggestion and handed down just such a reformulated restriction relying on 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2). In Voelker, among other holdings, we overturned a lifetime ban on Voelker's access to sexually explicit material. Voelker had pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography after he was caught briefly exposing his three-year-old daughter's buttocks over web cam, and later admitted to downloading pornographic images of children. United States v. Voelker, 489 F.3d 139, 142 (3d Cir.2007). The District Court imposed a lifelong term of supervised release which, inter alia, prohibited Voelker from possessing any materials ... depicting and/or describing sexually explicit conduct as defined at Title 18, United States Code, Section 2256(2). Id. at 143 (And, see the definition of sexually explicit conduct at note 8, supra ). [16] Voelker argued that the condition violated the First Amendment and involved a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to deter future criminal conduct and protect the public. Id. at 150. We held in Voelker that a nexus between the restriction and the goals of supervised release was absent. Id. In particular, we explained that nothing on th[e] record suggests that sexually explicit material involving only adults contributed in any way to Voelker's offense, nor is there any reason to believe that viewing such material would cause Voelker to reoffend. Id. at 151 (emphasis added). We do not read our precedents as foreclosing the use of conditions banning access to sexually explicit adult materials, particularly when children are victims and are victimized sexually by adults as a means to gratify adult desires. Rather, Loy stood for the proposition that a blanket ban on all forms of pornography may be constitutionally infirm, but that more limited provisions borrow[ing] applicable language from the federal statutory definition of child pornography, Loy, 237 F.3d at 267, are permissible. Whatever may be the parameters of pornography, see id. at 263-65, the present record transcends the characterization of mere pornography. Here, the record reveals explicit child exploitation and victimization by Thielemann in order to satisfy his sexual appetite for adult men. Unlike in Voelker, there is overwhelming evidence in this record to conclude that Thielemann's exposure to sexual material, albeit involving only adults, will contribute to future offenses by Thielemann. The report of Thielemann's own forensic psychiatrist, Carla Rodgers, M.D., reiterates Thielemann's commingling of adult and child sexual conduct. The report indicates that Thielemann used [pornographic images of children] in order to seduce heterosexual males into allowing him to perform fellatio on them. App. 119. While Dr. Rodgers concluded that Thielemann's primary interest was in men, and that he was not at risk of child molestation, the report clearly demonstrates Thielemann's sexual predilections. [17] Moreover, the chats unambiguously reveal that Thielemann's sexual experiences with adults and adult pornography were inextricably linked to his sexual interest in children. Thielemann made no secret of the fact that his desire arose from adult men who are aroused and sexually excited by children. Said Thielemann: I used [children] to get what I wanted. I wanted to see men turned on to their peak so they could come and do stuff to me. App. 149. Indeed, every one of Thielemann's adult sexual interactions with Phillips involved children. In order to understand Thielemann's conduct vis-à-vis children and Thielemann's associates, Thielemann's chats with Phillips should be read. We reproduce just one small segment of the June 11, 2006 chat, sickening as it is, to illustrate the manner in which Thielemann used children to obtain his sexual ends. The portion that we recount starts with a summary preamble appearing in the Presentence Report at paragraph 27, and continues with the actual chat through paragraph 29. We explain the abbreviations in the margin. [18] 27. On June 11, 2006, Phillips initiated an online chat with Thielemann, who asked Phillips to turn on his web cam so that Thielemann could masturbate while looking at Phillips. Phillips said his web cam was broken and the two men made plans to meet at a McDonald's bathroom. The continuing chat reflects that the two men discussed that Thielemann was going to take a shower during which he would take pictures of himself inserting his fingers into his anus. After an approximate 30 minute interruption in the chat conversation, Thielemann indicated that he was downloading those pictures on his computer and was preparing to send them to Phillips. Thielemann soon said, next we just got to work on [the victim], just kidding... After saying he would have sex with a young young girl, Thielemann sent to Phillips a picture of an approximate 3 year old girl performing fellatio on an adult male, Thielemann claiming that he and [a minor victim Thielemann could control] were the persons depicted in the image. When asked if he liked the picture, Phillips said, yeah cool. Thielemann said [the minor victim Thielemann could control] never told anyone about the sexual contact because he was suttle [subtle]: 28. suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:35:25 2006): I am talking likle 10 12 lol cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:35:30 2006): lol suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:35:32 2006): even younger lol cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:35:38 2006): like thats posable suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:35:52 2006): maybe one day suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:35:53 2006): never know cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:36:00 2006): have you ever suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:36:07 2006): yes told u that lol suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:36:12 2006): never with another guy though suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:36:17 2006): but I have by myself suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:36:22 2006): even have a picture to prove it lol cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:36:30 2006): yeah right suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:36:38 2006): u want to see cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:36:43 2006): sure suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:37:00 2006): accpet cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:37:24 2006): cant you sare the pic so I don't have to download it suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:37:30 2006): sure cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:37:38 2006): ok show suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:37:45 2006): :) told u cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:38:05 2006): o my god suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:38:13 2006): lol cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:38:32 2006): who is that suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:38:37 2006): [a minor victim Thielemann could control] suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:38:40 2006): u likle it or no cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:38:50 2006): she didnt tell on you suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:39:02 2006): no told u so many times b4 suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:39:04 2006): no suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:39:21 2006): same wa with [the victim] if u do it while there young they will forget all about it and all in like an hour so its all good suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:39:25 2006): do u like the picpture of no ? ? ? cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:39:42 2006): yeah cool suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:39:47 2006): ok good cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:40:01 2006): well [the victim] is 8 and she will tell suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:40:27 2006): not if u do it in a suttle way like idid with her suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:40:31 2006): I just pulled it out and she went for it suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:40:33 2006): lol cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:40:38 2006): lol suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:40:49 2006): but who knows I guess u know [the victim] better than me so cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:41:10 2006): yes and I wish she wouldnt tell but she will suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:42:00 2006): I odubt she will why don't u just try stuff like walking aaround naked or comming out of the shower naked one day and see what she says if she says antuhing then stop if not then like next sit her on ur lap in front of the computer or soomthing and get hard suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:42:09 2006): just try little stuff like that at first and see what she says u know cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:42:47 2006): yeah suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:42:56 2006): so do u really like that picture > cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:43:04 2006): yeaah suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:43:10 2006): your not gonna tell on me right cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:43:19 2006): no suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:43:25 2006): ok good suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:43:26 2006): :) cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:43:58 2006): well Im worked up now suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:44:06 2006): I am to lol cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:44:26 2006): lol suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:44:36 2006): see if she was there now u could do little stuff just to see what she will say I could walk u threw it lol suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:45:08 2006): I have never fucked her suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:45:17 2006): I just had her lick my dick and all came in her mouth cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12:45:27 2006): o god don't do that you would be in truble suckingunowinde (Sun Jun 11 12:45:43 2006): nah did it 4 times alreayd lol 29. On June 11, 2006, via web cam during an online chat Thielemann watched Phillips masturbate. App. 59-60. As we held in Loy, 237 F.3d at 266, almost any restriction upon sexually explicit material may well aid in rehabilitation and protection of the public. Here, a reading of the chats reveals that restricting Thielemann's access to adult sexually explicit material will undoubtedly aid in rehabilitation and protection of the public. Given Thielemann's sexual desire for adult men who abuse children, banning Thielemann from adult sexually explicit material would be an additional deterrent to Thielemann's sexual arousal and sexual excitement, as it would preclude him from including children in his future sexual experiences. [19] Otherwise, exposure to adult sexually explicit material might very well lead Thielemann to encourage his male associates either to initiate or to continue their abuse of children. In identifying this nexus between restriction and goals as required by Voelker, the Government expressed its fears, which we share. Our approval of the Special Condition which precludes Thielemann from viewing and possessing sexually explicit material was adverted to by the Government at oral argument. We recite the relevant portions of that argument: And, so the risk is this: Do we let this man-do we let this man look at adult pornography which presumably is going to exercise his sexual libido? Do we do that knowing that this man's history is through a long period of time, with many men, the defendant intends to gratify that sexual interest in adult men with the currency which is child pornography. And I believe what the District Court did in this case, and indicating that the defendant can not have this sexually explicit conduct, is to guard against the possibility that the public has to be protected to [e]nsure that this will not happen again. Because this is a pervasive problem that this defendant had. It was not an isolated episode. And, the other aspect of this is that the population at risk ... when we say protection of the public, the specific population at risk are the children. So that if the District Court Judge permits the defendant to have access to sexual and explicit material, this sexual explicit material arouses a pattern in the defendant to repeat this behavior. The population at risk, indeed, are children. That's a risk I submit that the Court reasonably did not take. Tr. of Oral Argument at 14. We hold that there is a significant nexus between restricting Thielemann from access to adult sexually explicit material and the goals of supervised release, and that the restriction here is not overbroad or vague considering the content of the instant record. As such, First Amendment implications are not involved. The balancing protocol required by Voelker tilts heavily in favor of protection of the public and children when we consider this record of inciting to child abuse. We are fully satisfied that the very unusual situation presented in this case thoroughly predominates over the First Amendment concerns raised in Loy. Accordingly, the District Court committed no error, let alone plain error, in requiring Thielemann's compliance with this Special Condition of Supervised Release. See United States v. Voelker, 489 F.3d 139, 143 n. 1 (3d Cir.2007); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).