Matter of Peterson v. McCall

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment”
• concluding that “knowingly” at the beginning of the federal pandering child pornography statute applied to all parts of the statute
• holding that “offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography aré categorically excluded from the First Amendment”
• holding that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are unprotected under this exception
• holding that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from first Amendment Protection
• holding that the statutes at issue were not impermissibly vague because a conviction under them turned on questions of fact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).