{{Short description|United States law regarding child abuse and violent crimes against children}} {{redirect|Suzanne's Law|the missing-person case that led to it|Disappearance of Suzanne Lyall}} {{Use American English|date=June 2025}} {{Use mdy dates|date=January 2026}} {{Sex offender registries in the United States}} The '''PROTECT Act of 2003''' ({{USPL|108|21}}, 117 Stat. 650, S. 151, enacted April 30, 2003) is a United States law with the stated intent of preventing child abuse as well as investigating and prosecuting violent crimes against children.<ref name=DOJfactsheet>{{cite web|url=http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2003/April/03_ag_266.htm |title=Fact Sheet PROTECT Act |publisher=Department of Justice|date=April 30, 2003}}</ref><ref name=fulltext>{{cite web|url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:s151:|title=Full Text of S.151 - PROTECT Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)|publisher=Library of Congress|date=April 30, 2003|access-date=June 7, 2009|archive-date=December 18, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081218145623/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:s151:|url-status=dead}}</ref> "PROTECT" is a backronym which stands for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today".
The PROTECT Act incorporates the '''Truth in Domain Names Act''' ('''TDNA''') of 2003 (originally two separate bills, submitted by Senator Orrin Hatch and Congressman Mike Pence), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2252(B)(b).<ref name=Aspen1>{{cite book|title=The law of electronic commerce|author=Jane K. Winn and Benjamin Wright|edition=4th|publisher=Aspen Publishers Online|year=2000|isbn=9780735516489|pages=11–21|volume=2008–02 Supp.}}</ref>
== Overview == The law has the following effects:<ref name=DOJfactsheet/><ref name=govtracksummary>{{cite web |title=Track.us. S. 151--108th Congress (2003): Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 |publisher=GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation) |url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-151&tab=summary |access-date=September 1, 2008 |archive-date=October 27, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111027015158/http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-151&tab=summary |url-status=dead }}</ref>
*Provides for mandatory life imprisonment of sex offenders convicted of sex offenses against a minor if the offender has had a prior conviction of abuse against a minor, with some exceptions. *Establishes a program to obtain criminal history background checks for volunteer organizations. *Authorizes wiretapping and monitoring of other communications in all cases related to child abuse or kidnapping. *Eliminates statutes of limitations for child abduction or child abuse. *Bars pretrial release of persons charged with specified offenses against or involving children. *Assigns a national Amber alert coordinator. *Implemented Suzanne's Law. Named after Suzanne Lyall, a 19-year-old college student at the University at Albany who disappeared in 1998,<ref>{{cite web|title=Suzanne Gloria Lyall|url=http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/l/lyall_suzanne.html|publisher=Charley Project|access-date=February 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170215025559/http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/l/lyall_suzanne.html|archive-date=February 15, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> the law eliminates waiting periods before law enforcement agencies will investigate reports of missing adults ages 18–21. These reports are also filed with the NCIC. *Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct"; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code). *Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, ''or'' depicting minors who are engaged in sex acts that are deemed obscene under an alternate test that removes the "community standards" prong of the Miller test. The law does not explicitly state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors). *Minimum sentence of 5 years for possession, 10 years for distribution. *Under Sec. 105, authorizes fines and/or imprisonment for up to 30 years for U.S. citizens or legal residents who engage in illicit sexual conduct abroad. Illicit sexual conduct means a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age or any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age.<ref name="f537">{{cite web | title=Crimes Against Minors Abroad | website=Travel | date=March 8, 2024 | url=https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/emergencies/arrest-detention/crimes-against-minors.html | access-date=January 5, 2025}}</ref><ref name="w851">{{cite web | last=Member | first=Any House | title=S.151 | website=Congress.gov | date=January 13, 2003 | url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/151 | access-date=January 5, 2025}}</ref><ref name="q592">{{cite web | title=Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools To End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act) | website=U.S. Department of State | date=January 20, 2009 | url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/tip/laws/120170.htm | access-date=January 5, 2025}}</ref><ref name="g780">{{cite web | title=Definitions for chapter | website=LII / Legal Information Institute | date=November 10, 1986 | url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2246 | access-date=January 5, 2025}}</ref><ref name="i049">{{cite web | title=Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion | website=LII / Legal Information Institute | date=October 28, 2000 | url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591 | access-date=January 5, 2025}}</ref> *Incorporated other proposed legislation existing at the time as: **the Code Adam Act of 2003, (Title III, Subtitle D) **the Truth in Domain Names proposed language (Title V, Subtitle B) **the Secure Authentication Feature and Enhanced Identification Defense Act of 2003, also cited as the SAFE ID Act, (Title VI, Section 607.) **the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003 (Title VI, Section 608.)
The PROTECT Act mandated that the United States Attorney General promulgate new regulations to enforce section 2257 of title 18, United States Code, colloquially known as the "2257 Regulations".
The PROTECT Act includes prohibitions against obscene illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as ''virtual child pornography''.<ref name=DOJfactsheet/><ref name=fulltext/><ref name=govtracksummary/> Previous provisions outlawing virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2002 decision, ''Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition''.<ref>Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 US 234 (2002).</ref> The PROTECT ACT attached an obscenity requirement under the Miller test or the variant test noted above to overcome this limitation.<ref>18 USC 1466A (a)</ref>
The PROTECT Act allows sex offenders to be sentenced to a lifetime term of federal supervised release. Although targeted most directly at sex offenders, the PROTECT Act affects all federal supervised releasees. The PROTECT Act removed the "aggregation requirement" of {{uscsub|18|3583|e|3|}} and {{uscsub|18|3583|h}}, which had limited the net amount of imprisonment that a sentencing court could impose for supervised release violations.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Morris|title=FYI: Supervised Release and How the PROTECT Act Changed Supervised Release|journal=Federal Sentencing Reporter|date=February 2006|volume=18|issue=3|pages=182–186|doi=10.1525/fsr.2006.18.3.182}}</ref>
The act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 30, 2003.<ref name="whitehouse">{{cite web|date=April 30, 2003|title=President Signs PROTECT Act: President's Remarks Upon Signing of S. 151, the Protect Act|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030430-6.html|publisher=White House Office of the Press Secretary}}</ref>
== Legislative history ==
Following the Supreme Court's decision in ''Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition'', Congress started working on a bill to address the court's concerns almost immediately.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Stout |first1=David |title=Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Virtual Child Pornography|website=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/16/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-ban-on-virtual-child-pornography.html |access-date=October 1, 2023|date=April 16, 2002|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170314022016/https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/16/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-ban-on-virtual-child-pornography.html |archive-date=March 14, 2017 }}.</ref> That same day, Representative Mark Foley stated that "The high court sided with pedophiles over children." The earliest known mention of the decision comes from April 17, 2002, in the ''Congressional Record'', one day after the court's decision<ref>{{cite web |title=MAKE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ILLEGAL; Congressional Record Vol. 148, No. 43 |url=https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-148/issue-43/house-section/article/H1342-3 |website=congress.gov |access-date=October 1, 2023}}</ref> by Rep. Foley. This was followed by numerous other remarks over the next few days.<ref>{{cite web |title=U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IS A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR CHILDREN; Congressional Record Vol. 148, No. 43 |url=https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-148/issue-43/house-section/article/H1344-7 |website=congress.gov |access-date=October 1, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=RESPONDING TO SUPREME COURT RULING ON PORNOGRAPHY; Congressional Record Vol. 148, No. 44 |url=https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-148/issue-44/house-section/article/H1414-1 |website=congress.gov |access-date=October 1, 2023}}</ref>
=== H.R. 4623 and S. 2511 (107th Congress) === The Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002, H.R. 4623,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Smith |first1=Lamar |title=H.R. 4623 (Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002) |date=April 30, 2002|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4623/all-info |website=congress.gov |access-date=October 1, 2023}}</ref> was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith on April 30, 2002, and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary that same day.<ref>{{cite web |title=H. Rept. 107-526 - CHILD OBSCENITY AND PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT OF 2002 |url=https://www.congress.gov/107/crpt/hrpt526/CRPT-107hrpt526.pdf |website=congress.gov |access-date=October 1, 2023 |date=June 24, 2002}}</ref> The bill passed the House by a vote of 413 - 8 on a motion to suspend the rules (1 representative voted present).<ref>{{cite web |last1=Washington |first1=U. S. Capitol Room H154 |last2=p:225-7000 |first2=DC 20515-6601 |title=Roll Call 256 Roll Call 256, Bill Number: H. R. 4623, 107th Congress, 2nd Session |url=https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2002256 |website=Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives |access-date=October 1, 2023 |language=en |date=June 25, 2002}}</ref> It was received in the Senate the following day<ref>{{cite web |title=MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE; Congressional Record Vol. 148, No. 87 (Senate - June 26, 2002) |url=https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-148/issue-87/senate-section/article/S6126-4 |website=congress.gov |access-date=October 1, 2023}}</ref> and committee hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee were held on October 2;<ref>{{cite web |title=S. Hrg. 107-974 - Stopping Child Pornography: Protecting Our Children and the Constitution |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107shrg88680/pdf/CHRG-107shrg88680.pdf |website=U.S. Government Publishing Office |access-date=October 1, 2023 |date=October 2, 2002}}</ref> no report was issued, and the bill did not pass the Senate. A similar bill, S. 2511, was introduced in the Senate on May 14, 2002,<ref>{{cite web |title=STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS--MAY 14, 2002; Congressional Record Vol. 148, No. 62 (Senate - May 15, 2002) |url=https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-148/issue-62/senate-section/article/S4389-1 |website=congress.gov |access-date=October 1, 2023}}</ref> and was likewise referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Both S. 2511 and H.R. 4623 expired at the end of the 107th Congress.
==Application of the act== ===Appellate Court===
On April 6, 2006, in ''United States v. Williams'', the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that one component of the PROTECT Act, the "pandering provision" codified at {{UnitedStatesCode|18|2252A}}(a)(3)(B) of the United States Code, violated the First Amendment. The "pandering provision" conferred criminal liability on anyone who knowingly
<blockquote>advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains (i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.</blockquote>
The ''Williams'' court held that although the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Based on this determination, the court held § 2252A(a)(3)(B) to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further stated that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.<ref name=":0" />
=== Supreme Court cases === The Department of Justice appealed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its May 2008 decision in ''United States v. Williams'', the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling and upheld this portion of the act.<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-694.pdf|access-date=May 19, 2008|title=Decision in US v. Williams}}</ref><ref>United States v. Williams, 553 US 285, 128 S Ct 1830, 170 L Ed 2d 650 (2008).</ref> However, the court did not reverse its holding in ''Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition'' as to virtual child pornography which is not obscene under the Miller standard.<ref> See dissenting opinions by Souter, J and Ginsburg, J in Williams, supra.</ref>
In July 2024, R. Kelly asked the Supreme Court to overturn his criminal convictions because he is using the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. Kelly says that the crimes occurred in the 1990s which punishes him retroactively.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/r-kelly-hopes-key-technicality-will-move-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-convictions-for-sexually-abusing-teenage-girls-in-the-1990s/ | title=R. Kelly hopes key technicality will move SCOTUS to overturn convictions for 1990s sex abuse | date=July 30, 2024 }}</ref>
===Convictions=== The first conviction of a person found to have violated the sections of the act relating to virtual child pornography was Dwight Whorley of Virginia, who used computers at the Virginia Employment Commission to download "Japanese anime style cartoons of children engaged in explicit sexual conduct with adults"<ref name="USvsWhorley" /> alleged to depict "children engaged in explicit sexual conduct with adults". He was charged with 19 counts of "knowingly receiving" child pornography for printing out two cartoons and viewing others.<ref name= "CBLDF">Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, [http://cbldf.org/criminal-prosecutions-of-manga/ "Criminal Prosecutions of Manga"] (accessed January 7, 2017)</ref> His conviction was upheld in a 2–1 panel decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2008.<ref name="USvsWhorley">{{cite web|url=http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/064288.P.pdf|access-date=January 16, 2010|title=Decision in US v. Whorley|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100821223610/http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/064288.P.pdf|archive-date=August 21, 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref> This decision was consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in ''Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition'' in which the Supreme Court held that virtual child pornography was protected free speech, provided that the virtual depictions are not obscene. Obscenity, including obscene depictions of children, either virtual or real, is unprotected speech. (Whorley was also previously convicted of other child sexual abuse related offenses.)
Also in 2008, Christopher Handley, a "prolific collector" of manga,<ref>David Kravets, [https://www.wired.com/2009/05/manga-porn/ "U.S. Manga Obscenity Conviction Roils Comics World"], ''Wired'', May 28, 2009 (accessed January 7, 2017).</ref> pleaded guilty to charges related to the PROTECT Act, in exchange for a six-month plea deal, five years of probation, and forfeiture of his collection of manga and anime that had been seized by police.<ref name= "CBLDF" /> He was facing a maximum sentence of up to twenty years. While not convicted by a jury, he was the first person charged under the PROTECT Act for the lone act of possessing art deemed obscene, in the form of seven manga graphic novels ordered from Japan. In the case ''United States v. Handley'', district court Judge James E. Gritzner ruled that two parts of the PROTECT Act that criminalized certain depictions without having to go through the Miller test were overbroad and thus unconstitutional.<ref>{{Cite web|title=United States v. Handley, 564 F. Supp. 2d 996 (S.D. Iowa 2008)|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/564/996/1407869/|website=Justia Law|language=en|access-date=May 4, 2020}}</ref> Handley still faces an obscenity charge.<ref>David Kravets, [https://www.wired.com/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-collector-jailed-6-months/ {{"'}}Obscene' U.S. Manga Collector Jailed 6 months"], ''Wired'', February 12, 2010 (accessed January 7, 2017).</ref> A later ruling in ''United States v. Dean'' challenged the ''Handley'' overbreadth ruling because the ''Handley'' ruling did not prove that the sections had "substantial overbreadth".<ref>{{Citation|title=US v. Dean|date=March 16, 2011|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1511687855848739506&q=635+F.3d+1200+(2011)&hl=en&as_sdt=20000006&as_vis=1#%5B6%5D|volume=635|pages=1200|access-date=May 4, 2020}}</ref>
===Criticism===
According to Adler, Delohery, and Charles Brownstein,<ref>[http://nysbar.com/blogs/EASL/2012/05/is_manga_a_crime_non-photograp.html "Is Manga a Crime? Non-photographic Images, Child Pornography and Freedom of Expression"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160827102957/http://nysbar.com/blogs/EASL/2012/05/is_manga_a_crime_non-photograp.html |date=August 27, 2016 }}, Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law Section of the New York State Bar Association, May 23, 2012 (accessed January 7, 2016)</ref> "the current law raises concerns for creators, publishers, and collectors of various forms of entertainment (including, but not limited to, comics/manga, video games, and fine art)." Bell argues that the PROTECT Act should be reexamined by Congress because it infringes on the First Amendment's right to free expression.<ref>Rosalind E. Bell, [http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-87-6-Bell.pdf "Reconciling the PROTECT Act with the First Amendment"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160624074340/http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-87-6-Bell.pdf |date=June 24, 2016 }}, ''NYU Law Review, Vol. 87'', Dec. 2012, p. 1878-1917. (accessed January 7, 2016)</ref>
==See also== *Laws regarding child pornography *Child pornography laws in the United States *Legal status of drawn pornography depicting minors *Child abduction scare of 2002
==References== {{reflist}} https://www.rcfp.org/journals/the-news-media-and-the-law-winter-2000/acts-prohibition-simulated/
== Further reading == * {{cite journal|author=Christopher G. Clark|title=The Truth in Domain Names Act of 2003 and a Preventative Measure to Combat Typosquatting|journal=Cornell Law Review|volume=89|issue=6|pages=1476|date=September 2004|ssrn=754524}} * {{cite journal|author=Lisa D. Davis|title=Trapping Mousetrappers with the Truth in Domain Names Act of 2003: The constitutionality of prohibiting "typosquatting" on the Internet|journal=Alabama Law Review|date=2005–2006|pages=521–544|volume=57|issue=2|publisher=University of Alabama|url=http://law.ua.edu/lawreview/articles/Volume%2057/Issue%202/Davis.pdf|archive-date=September 21, 2011|access-date=August 31, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110921031034/http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/articles/Volume%2057/Issue%202/Davis.pdf|url-status=dead}} ([https://web.archive.org/web/20150617221253/http://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2057/Issue%202/Davis.pdf Archive]) * Fraley, Amy. "[http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1242&context=lawreview Child Sex Tourism Legislation Under the PROTECT Act: Does It Really Protect?]" ([https://web.archive.org/web/20150706005308/http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1242&context=lawreview Archive]). ''St. John's Law Review''. Spring 2005, Issue 2, Volume 79, Number 2, Article 7. Posted in February 2012. p. 445-484.
==External links== * [http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/108/s/s151enr.pdf Text of the Act]{{dead link|date=December 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} at GovTrack * [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.151: Text of the Act] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041028140623/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.151: |date=October 28, 2004 }} at THOMAS * [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0415128p.pdf Text of 11th Circuit decision in United States v. Williams] * [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s108-151 Legislative history] at GovTrack
{{Authority control}}
Category:Child pornography law Category:Sex laws Category:United States federal criminal legislation Category:Acts of the 108th United States Congress Category:Child abduction in the United States