Knox pornography case
The Knox pornography case revolves around Stephen Knox, a history graduate student at Penn State who was convicted in 1991 for possessing child pornography after authorities found videotapes featuring teenage models in fashion poses. Although the models, aged ten to seventeen, were not nude and were not depicted in sexual contexts, the court ruled that the presentation of their bodies, particularly lingering shots on their genital areas, constituted "lascivious exhibition," leading to Knox's conviction. This ruling sparked significant legal debate, especially regarding the definition of child pornography. Knox's appeal reached the Supreme Court in 1993, where a pivotal interpretation emerged, suggesting that explicit exposure of genitalia was necessary for prosecution, igniting a political uproar. The case prompted discussions on the boundaries between legitimate modeling and exploitative content, raising concerns about the potential impact on child protection laws. Ultimately, the Knox case contributed to a re-evaluation of legal standards surrounding child pornography and First Amendment rights in the context of free speech. The ensuing discussions highlighted the complexity of navigating societal values, legal definitions, and protections for minors in media representation.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Knox pornography case
The Event A series of court reviews that tested definitions of child pornography
Date October 11, 1991-June 9, 1994
The federal court system, amid the heated political atmosphere of the midterm elections of 1994, revisited the legal definition of child pornography as it applied specifically to photography.
In 1991, during a warrant-search of the apartment of Stephen Knox, a history graduate student at Penn State who had been twice convicted of possessing child pornography, agents recovered commercially made videotapes of female teenage models ostensibly in fashion poses. Although the girls, ages ten to seventeen, were not nude (they wore bathing suits, leotards, and underwear), were not posed, and were not engaging in sexual acts, Knox was arrested and subsequently, on October 11, 1991, convicted of possessing child pornography, the court citing that the images frequently lingered on the genital area. However, given the definition of child pornography upheld by courts since the mid-1980’s as the “lascivious exhibition” of the genitals of anyone under eighteen, Knox appealed his conviction. The United States Court of Pennsylvania upheld the lower court’s ruling (they cited photos in which upper thighs were exposed), and Knox received a five-year prison sentence. His subsequent appeal, to the Third Circuit United States Court of Appeals, was as well denied in October, 1992.
When Knox took his case to the Supreme Court in the fall of 1993, however, U.S. solicitor general Drew Days argued that the genitalia needed to be exposed to qualify as “lascivious exhibition.” When the Supreme Court agreed on November 1, 1993, and remanded the decision to the Third Circuit Court, a political firestorm was ignited as the narrowed interpretation would exclude much child pornography from prosecution. Challenged by a vociferous right-wing coalition, the Senate, within three days, voted 100-0 on a nonbinding censure against the Clinton Justice Department (later, in April, the House voted a similar censure). An embattled President Bill Clinton—feeling the first resolve of the political revolution in which conservatives would claim both houses of Congress in an historic midterm election later that year and seeing the political hazards of his administration being viewed as soft on child porn—sent a reprimand to his attorney general, Janet Reno, calling for a tougher definition of child pornography. On June 9, 1994, under considerable media scrutiny and public pressure, the Third District Court rejected Days’s argument. Later, after the midterm elections, the Clinton Justice Department reversed its position on Knox, although there was speculation on the level of disagreement within the department over that reversal.
Impact
The contentious response over the Knox ruling ignited a national debate over the definition of child pornography, raising thorny questions about what constitutes legitimate commercial modeling and what constitutes exploitative material targeted for pedophiles. Amid a polarized political environment, the courts concluded essentially that photographs were actions not representations protected by First Amendment free speech and consequently could be restricted.
Bibliography
Hixson, Richard F. Pornography and the Justices: The Supreme Court and the Intractable Obscenity Problem. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1996.
Nathan, Debbie. Pornography. Toronto: Groundwood Books, 2007.