United States v. Jeffrey Anderson

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that Stevens noted that Ferber held child pornography was categorically unprotected “because it involved visual depictions that were produced through sexual abuse of one or more children”
• “[T]he Supreme Court [has] recognized child pornography as one . . . category of material . . . not entitled to First Amendment protection.” (quotation omitted)
• child-pornography category limited to images of actual abuse

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).