Receipt of child pornography

Receipt of child pornography is an offense that involves knowingly receiving child pornography. The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed.1989) defines "receive" as "[t]o take in one's hand, or into one's possession (something held out or offered by another); to take delivery of (a thing) from another, either for oneself or for a third party."

Receipt is not the only means by which one could obtain child pornography. Production is another means. The courts have found that possession of child pornography does not by itself prove receipt.

At the federal level, a connection to interstate commerce must be proved. Also, the defendant must have known, not just that he was receiving something, but that what he was receiving was child pornography. The defendant's knowledge is established for purposes of § 2252(a) if "he is aware that his receipt of the illegal images is practically certain to follow from his conduct."

History

The original version of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) punished “[a]ny person who. . . knowingly receive[d] for the purpose of sale or distribution for sale, or knowingly s[old] or distribute[d] for sale, any” child pornography. Then Congress passed the Child Protection Act of 1984 which amended § 2252 and made non-commercial trafficking a federal crime.

To effectuate the intended change in § 2252’s scope, Congress made two simple changes to the language found in § 2252(a)(2). First, Congress eliminated the requirement that “receiving” child pornography be “for the purpose of sale or distribution for sale” from the statute altogether. Congress also struck the language requiring “distribution” to be“for sale.” The resulting § 2252(a)(2) simply punishes “[a]ny person who . . . knowingly receives, or distributes” child pornography.

This created an entirely new class of offenders that received and subsequently possessed child pornography for personal use. Reverse sting operations like “Operation Looking Glass” were able to garner sufficient evidence of “receipt.” Nonetheless, those caught simply in “possession” of child pornography, with no evidence of “receipt,” could avoid a conviction under § 2252(a)(2) simply because law enforcement intervened at a later time.

Congress would eventually rectify this by criminalizing “possession.” However, that did not ultimately resolve the problem of inconsistently punishing receivers and possessors.