[1]Quoted in Sandor Ferenczi, First Contributions to Psycho-Analysis 254(1980).  

 [2]The Ferber case, for example, involved two films of young boys masturbating that were sold at a Manhattan adult bookstore. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 751-53 (1982).

[3] Andrew Vachss, Age of Innocence, Guardian (London), April 17, 1994, at 14.  

[4] Ferber, 458 U.S. at 756, 764 (holding that "states are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children" and that "child pornography ... is unprotected by the First Amendment").  

[5] Compared to other areas of First Amendment law, child pornography has been largely unexamined. Few law review articles have been written on the subject of child pornography and the First Amendment.
The following articles discuss the issue in depth:

Debra D. Burke, The Criminalization of Virtual Child Pornography: A Constitutional Question, 34 Harv. J. on Legis. 439 (1997);

L. Steven Grasz & Patrick J. Pfaltzgraff, Child Pornography and Child Nudity: Why and How States May Constitutionally Regulate the Production, Possession, and Distribution of Nude Visual Depictions Of Children, 71 Temp. L. Rev. 609, 611-12 (1998);

Josephine R. Potuto, Stanley + Ferber = The Constitutional Crime of At-Home Child Pornography Possession, 76 Ky. L.J. 15, 80 (1987-1988);

 John Quigley, Child Pornography and the Right to Privacy, 43 Fla. L. Rev. 347, 348 (1991);

 Frederick Schauer, Codifying the First Amendment: New York v. Ferber, 1982 Sup. Ct. Rev. 285, 317;

Ronald W. Adelman, The Constitutionality Of Congressional Efforts To Ban Computer-Generated Child Pornography: A First Amendment Assessment Of S.1237, 14 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 483 (1996);

Sandra Zunker Brown, First Amendment - Nonobscene Child Pornography and Its Categorical Exclusion from Constitutional Protection: New York v. Ferber, 102 S. Ct. 3348 (1982), 73 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1337 (1982);

Lisa S. Smith, Private Possession of Child Pornography: Narrowing At-Home Privacy Rights, 1991 Ann. Surv. Am. L. 1011;

David T. Cox, Litigating Child Pornography and Obscenity Cases in the Internet Age, 4.2 J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 1 (1999).

In contrast to the limited number of articles, there has been a significant number of student notes, particularly on the subject of child pornography on the Internet. Even so, the number of notes about child pornography is dramatically smaller than for notes addressing obscenity or adult pornography. Several articles and notes have analyzed child pornography laws in order to consider mens rea requirements. Others have examined the issues of statutory interpretation and scienter based on the case United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994).

One further explanation for the relative absence of interest by legal scholars in this field is that it has to do with children. As an art historian writes, "My own academic field dismisses the subject of the child as being trivial and sentimental, good only for second-rate minds and perhaps for women." Anne Higonnet, Pictures of Innocence: The History and Crisis of Ideal Childhood 13 (1998).

[6] Amy Adler, Inverting the First Amendment, 149 U. Pa. L. Rev (forthcoming April, 2001) [hereinafter Adler, Inverting the First Amendment]. In this separate article, I argue that the developments in child pornography law are of serious and unappreciated doctrinal significance. As both the definition of child pornography and the rationales for banning it have expanded, they have mutually undermined one another. These twin developments have had a synergistic effect: The result is that child pornography law has drifted quite far from its original purpose, to protect children from sexual abuse. And in doing so, child pornography law has introduced into the First Amendment a radical view of speech, how it works and why we restrict it.  

[7] Perhaps only adolescence.  

[8] Vikki Bell, Interrogating Incest: Feminism, Foucault, and the Law 2 (1993);

Ian Hacking, The Making and Molding of Child Abuse, 17 Critical Inquiry 253 (1991) [hereinafter Hacking, Making and Molding];

see also Florence Rush, The Best Kept Secret: Sexual Abuse of Children (1980).  

[9] Infra notes 28-43 and accompanying text.

[10] Philip Jenkins, Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America 147 (1998) (quoting Ernest Volkman & Howard L. Rosenberg, The Shame of the Nation, Fam. Wkly., June 2, 1985, at 4).  

[11] Richard Goldstein, The Girl in the Fun Bubble, Village Voice, June 10, 1997 at 41 [hereinafter Goldstein, The Girl in the Fun Bubble].  

[12] Infra note 36 and accompanying text.  

[13] Infra Part I.B.1.  

[14] Infra Part IV.A.

[15] See, e.g., United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 833 (S.D. Cal. 1986) (observing that a 14-year-old girl in photograph has "sexually coy attitude, staring directly at the camera with her head slightly bent to the side").  

[16] Knox v. United States, 32 F.3d 733, 746 (3d Cir. 1994) (discussing the discernibility of young girl's genitals through "thin but opaque clothing"); Knox v. United States, 977 F.2d 815, 819 (3d Cir. 1992) (evaluating medical treatises to determine whether the inner thigh is part of the "pubic area"); see also infra notes 274-305 and accompanying text.  

[17] For some of the burgeoning literature on the unintended consequences of legal regulation, see

Richard H. McAdams, The Origin, Development, and Regulation of Norms, 96 Mich. L. Rev. 338, 386-87 (1997) (discussing conflict between "group norms" and "societal norms");

 Richard H. Pildes, The Unintended Cultural Consequences of Public Policy: A Comment on the Symposium, 89 Mich. L. Rev. 936, 937-38 (1991) (suggesting that some public policies may have "unintended cultural consequences");

Cass R. Sunstein, Congress, Constitutional Moments, and the Cost-Benefit State, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 247, 261 (1996) (exploring "myopic approach" of some regulations that lead to bad unintended consequences);

Cass R. Sunstein, Paradoxes of the Regulatory State, 57 U. Chi. L. Rev. 407, 412-29 (1990) (exploring unintended consequences of regulatory measures).

[18] Cf. William J. Stuntz, The Uneasy Relationship Between Criminal Procedure and Criminal Justice, 107 Yale L.J. 1, 3-4 (1997) (describing a "perverse" relationship between criminal procedure and substantive criminal law).

[19] My focus is on child pornography law as opposed to other laws governing child abuse. Although I believe that an investigation of some of those laws would add weight to my argument, I focus on child pornography law exclusively for two reasons:

First, a limited case study allows for closer analysis; and

second, part of my analysis depends on problems of language and representation that are unique to censorship law.