ULaw Today: Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Amy and Vicky, two child pornography victims, in an appeal brought by the Utah Appellate Clinic. | In re: Amy & Vicky
Utah Supreme Court upholds “harm to minors” conviction for nude drawings defendant sent to his 5 yr. old daughter
. . . the Utah Supreme Court upheld the convictions (see State v. Butt (Utah June 8, 2012)), reasoning . . . Here’s my question: Can a reasonable jury conclude that the defendant’s drawings appealed to a minor’s prurient (defined as “shameful or morbid”) interest in sex, and especially a 5-year-old girl’s interest in sex? . . .
Deseret News: The Utah law sought to make website operators or content providers liable for any material that the state deems harmful to minors. | Opinion: Florence v. Shurtleff, No. 2:05-cv-00485-DB-SA
At The Volokh Conspiracy , Eugene Volokh comments on a Utah sentencing ruling which holds that viewing “legal” pornography can be considered as a factor at sentencing. It seems one of the most critical factors in these cases may be the nature of the underlying offense for which the defendant is being sentenced. | State v. Epling, (Utah. Ct. App. July 21, 2011)
Utah v. Coble, No. 20080866, 2010 WL 1617482 (Utah April 22, 2010)
For webcam offense, both lewdness and pornography distribution charges can apply.
Probate & Property: “This article reviews the current legal rules and techniques for a balanced and successful legal regime for regulating sexually oriented businesses.”