Talk:United States v. Williams (2008)

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pornography Mid‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Link from lolicon

I followed a link from Lolicon#United States to this article. There is a brief description of this case here. The description was understandably abbreviated. In reading this article in full, I am wondering if it is even appropriate to describe this case there? While this case may be related, it only describes virtual pornography (3d or something?) whereas lolicon is a specific japanese-style (primarily 2d doujin of manga characters) form of art. I think it's important to not clutter that article more than necessary if things don't directly pertain to it... so do the conclusions of this case and PROTECT act extend to, for example, the recent case in Iowa involving PROTECT and the CBLDF? I think there may be differing precidents regarding 2D and 3D art, because 3D art is more realistic whereas 2D I think is much more obviously fictional and non-human, especially in terms of lolicon. I don't think it would be fair to compare the realism of certain 3D art (The Spirits Within for example, looks incredibly human) to lolicon, although perhaps the same laws do cover both forms of art, I think it would be appropriate to post a disclaimer that this case quoted may not actually be lolicon. There is a lack of data pertaining to this, I guess. I've also listed some of the references for that case in this article as well, as the article specifically for this case should have more data than a mention in another, not less. Tyciol (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description as of Dec 5 2008

On April 6, 2006, the arrest of one Michael Williams for child pornography was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. Williams, but the portion of the arrest which pertained to the PROTECT Act was overturned. Specific cartoon depictions of what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) were deemed insufficient to actually fulfill the requirements of the PROTECT Act, as the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) of § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.[75]

The Department of Justice appealed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case review docket is listed as 06-0694 and was scheduled for October 30, 2007 on the 2007-2008 schedule.[2][dead link] The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case and overturned the Eleventh Circuit's ruling 7-2 with Justices Souter and Ginsberg dissenting. The court stressed that virtual child pornography remained under the protection of the First Amendment, except when it was offered or solicited under the mistaken impression that actual children were depicted.[76]

As I mentioned, this is what was listed, I'm not sure who collected this data or if it has been properly referenced, because I haven't had the time to check the 2 PDFs. The numbers in parenthesis are added to the reference list. I'm not very familiar with American Law, and I'm not sure which state the Williams case occured in, its law, or how the PROTECT act applies to it. Tyciol (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

One question that is valuable to ask, is is this court case notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? I ask this to the creators, I know it must be somewhat significant since someone else added it to another article, but I'm sure PROTECT affects MANY legal cases, so what makes this one stand out? I'm not an expert in Wikipedia notability, but stuff like that tends to come up, so to avoid losing whatever work may go into this, I think the creators should make a case for its significance through discussion here, or else it may be deleted some day. Tyciol (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Editors advised to please help fix incoming links Mark Schierbecker (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– There are several US cases with the name United States v. Williams. US Federal Courts distinguish cases with the same name with the year in parentheses after the case name. I am requesting two moves:

First, change the current United States v. Williams to add the year (2008) to distinguish this case from other cases with the same name.
Second, change the United States v. Williams (disambiguation) to United States v. Williams so that if someone searches for United States v. Williams, this will assist in finding the correct case. Chipermc (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ as premature. There are only two such cases with articles on Wikipedia:

United States v. Williams (United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008)); and
United States v. Williams (1992) (United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992).

Per WP:TWODABS, the article that is the primary topic should be at United States v. Williams, with a hatnote to the other. My initial take is that the 2008 case is the primary topic, and is named correctly as it stands. All it needs is a hatnote to the 1992 case.

I note that, as I type this, there are eight cases listed at United States v. Williams (disambiguation), but that page is a WP:MOSDAB violation; all but two entries are redlinks, which I'm about to delete per MOS:DABRED. At that point, the United States v. Williams (disambiguation) page should be deleted per WP:TWODABS. TJRC (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Tentatively support - With User:Chipermc's creation of United States v. Williams (1951) after I posted my comment above, WP:TWODABS no longer applies. I still kind of think that the 2008 case is the primary topic; but I don't feel extremely strongly on that point. With three cases, though, anyone wanting anything other than the 2008 would need to click through an extra time, first to the dab page and then to the individual case they would want; and I've not sufficiently convinced myself that the 2008 case is that clearly primary to justify that. TJRC (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TJRC. I agree that the 2008 case is probably the most well-known of the cases at the moment, but in the long-term, it may not be the primary topic. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Used by balenciaga in its latest stunt

See pdf in the end of the page. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preview image to this article shows trans flag

Hello,

I have no idea how wikipedia works. But I was on the ShoeOnHead article, Balenciaga paragraph, and the link to this page shows as a preview picture the transgender flag. Could someone take care of this.

Best regards. 2A02:810A:8C0:20D4:2D4F:A27A:6912:A665 (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]