United States v. Knox

The case of United States v. Knox, involved a man who purchased videotapes of young girls dancing and posing in skimpy outfits. The videotapes were advertised as being legal because they did not contain any nudity. The man was convicted of receiving and possessing child pornography. In upholding Knox's conviction, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit wrote:

Hence, as used in the child pornography statute, the ordinary meaning of the phrase "lascivious exhibition" means a depiction which displays or brings forth to view in order to attract notice to the genitals or pubic area of children, in order to excite lustfulness or sexual stimulation in the viewer. Such a definition does not contain any requirement of nudity. [...] Nor does such a definition contain or suggest a requirement that the contours of the genitals or pubic area be discernible or otherwise visible through the child subject's clothing.

The court rejected the idea that the defendant could rely on the vendor's claim that the videotapes were legal, and specifically stated that a claim of legality should alert a viewer to the presence of potentially illegal material:

[The vendor]'s disclaimer could not reasonably lead Knox to believe that the videotapes were legal. If anything, the need to profess legality should have alerted Knox to the films' dubious legality.

The court also agreed with a wide interpretation of the term "pubic area":

[O]ther areas in close proximity to the genitals, specifically the "uppermost portion of the inner thigh," were also included in the statutory definition of the pubic area.

This decision was based in part on a last-minute change to the proposed child pornography law in 1977. As it was originally written, the law would have prohibited "nudity, which nudity is depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any individual who may view such depiction." The revised and still current law prohibits the "actual or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." The court reasoned that by removing the reference to nudity, the government intended to criminalize both nude and non-nude depictions of children.

Similar cases and precedents are rumored to exist in the United Kingdom and Australia.