United States v. Robert David Sirois

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting the argument that § 2251(a) is constitutionally suspect unless a “commercial purpose” requirement is engrafted onto it
• “There is undoubtedly an active component to the notion of ‘use.’ But that component is fully satisfied for the purposes of the child pornography statute if a child is photographed in order to create pornography.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).