United States of America v. United States District Court for the Central District of California (Kantor)
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
858 F.2d 534 (1988)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
To protect minors from sexual exploitation, Congress enacted a strict liability statute prohibiting filmmakers from showing minors performing sexually explicit acts. The statute provided severe penalties for violators and did not require prima facie evidence that the filmmaker knew the performer was a minor. The United States government (plaintiff) alleged that Ronald Renee Kantor and Rupert Sebastian McNee (producers) (defendants) violated the statute by making a sexually explicit film featuring a 16-year-old star, and prosecuted the producers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The producers proffered evidence that the star deceived them into thinking she was an adult, and they had no knowledge as to the star's true age. The government moved to bar the evidence because scienter was not an element of the statutory offense. The producers moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that, without the element of scienter, the statute denied them the right to free expression guaranteed by the United States Constitution's First Amendment. The court denied both motions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kozinski, J.)
Dissent (Beezer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
