# What media is illegal to own in the United States
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [December 18, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661 "2013-12-18T18:10:54Z")
**Posts on this page:** 10
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Inigo\_Montoya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inigo_Montoya)
#### Post date: [December 19, 2013, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661/21 "2013-12-19T13:53:08Z")
> [@kayaker](#):
>
> A good mnemonic: Bestiality is best.
True enough, but my mind goes more readily to the drinking song, which teaches us incorrectly:
Bestiality’s gr **ea** t - mate
Bestiality’s gr **ea** t - fuckawallaby
…etc…
---
### Author:  [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)
#### Post date: [December 19, 2013, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661/22 "2013-12-19T15:22:11Z")
> [@Rysler](#):
>
> Along with child pornography and bestiality, the John Ashcroft era cracked down on scat pornography under obscenity laws. Lots of arrests, but very few convictions.
It’s important to note that child pornography laws are not based on obscenity, but on protecting minors from exploitation. Laws against “virtual child pornography” were found to be unconstitutional, because a computer-generated drawing (or an adult woman dressed up like a little girl) does not require legal protection.
---
### Author:  [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)
#### Post date: [December 19, 2013, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661/23 "2013-12-19T16:14:54Z")
> [@md2000](#):
>
> …
>
> There may not be specific items illegal to own like hitman or explosives “How To” manuals, but possession of these when they come looking for you during a criminal investigation will be one more item brought up in court.
> …
Good point. Cops, while generally not geniuses, aren’t stupid-heads. They use common sense to try to figure out what is going on. If someone in town is diddling 10 year old girls and you end up a suspect and cops search your home and find a shelf full of Nancy Drew books and you are a 30 year old single guy who lives alone, you should expect to be high on the list of suspects and receive potentially unwanted attention from police that you would otherwise not have received. But that doesn’t mean that it’s illegal for single guys to have Nancy Drew books. The books will draw police attention to you who are then more likely to find something illegal in what you are doing and bust you for it.
---
### Author:  [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)
#### Post date: [December 19, 2013, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661/24 "2013-12-19T16:33:51Z")
> [@pkbites](#):
>
> Paladin Press’ insurance company agreed to settle the case out-of-court
Wow, a proper genitive for once. If it was settled “out-of-court”, then it ought not set any precedent.
I’m going to question the statement that owning or possessing a book on “How to Make an Atom Bomb” is illegal. It’s not that hard and I can’t imagine it being classified. If law enforcement searches your home and that’s all they find, I don’t think they can make an arrest. On the other hand, they also find a four foot length of 6" steel pipe and a dozen sticks of TNT, then they can arrest you for materially trying to construct an atom bomb.
(The NPR coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing actually went into some detail on how those bombs were made.)
The only hard part is handling the fissionable material. One just can’t pick it up and move it around. Best if one uses lead lined bunkers and these robotic arm-thingies like in the movie “Andromeda Strain”.
---
### Author:  [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)
#### Post date: [December 19, 2013, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661/25 "2013-12-19T17:52:55Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#):
>
> If it was settled “out-of-court”, then it ought not set any precedent.
Oh but it does. The precedent that a form of media is not protected by the First Amendment now stands. Had the insurance company fought they could have gotten that ruling reversed, even if they would have had to go all the way to SCOTUS.
As it is it is a very dangerous ruling.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [December 19, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661/26 "2013-12-19T18:12:33Z")
> [@pkbites](#):
>
> What stinks about the insurance company not fighting it is, it creates precedent. Had they fought it is more probable than not that they would have won, even if it had to go all the way to the supreme court. Now there is pretty much nothing stopping anyone from suing any writer for anything written which is later used in the commission of a crime. There never was anything stopping anyone in the past, but now there is a successful case of it on record.
> [@pkbites](#):
>
> Oh but it does. The precedent that a form of media is not protected by the First Amendment now stands. Had the insurance company fought they could have gotten that ruling reversed, even if they would have had to go all the way to SCOTUS.
> As it is it is a very dangerous ruling.
Its precedential value is limited to the [Fourth Circuit](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11246858167733420309&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr). In any event, the facts of the case are virtually unique; Paladin admitted repeatedly that it _intended_ to assist in the commission of murders. Had they done what any smart business enterprise would have done, and simply said that the work was of commercial interest, they would have been fine.
Incidentally, the settlement had no effect either way on the precedential value of the decision (other than removing the potential of a subsequent appeal.)
> [@kunilou](#):
>
> [U.S.C. Title 18](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/html/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap37-sec793.htm)would suggest that knowingly receiving or publishing classified information is a criminal act.
Bingo. There is a distinction between trade secrets and other private information and _state_ secrets, or classified information.
---
### Author:  [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)
#### Post date: [December 19, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661/27 "2013-12-19T18:55:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> Bingo. There is a distinction between trade secrets and other private information and _state_ secrets, or classified information.
Again, IANAL but the first line of that offers some wiggle room for intent:
> [@](#):
>
> Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with _intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation,_
One could argue that the New York Times interests are for the public good and not to injure the government.
---
### Author:  [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)
#### Post date: [December 19, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661/28 "2013-12-19T19:15:08Z")
> [@gotpasswords](#):
>
> A while back, there was some uproar over the AACS encryption key being deemed an “illegal number.” The uproar and legality vs free speech aspects seem to be still undecided, so to protect the SDMB, I won’t post it or link to it, but it is easily searched.
>
> There’s also a similarly illegal number related to jail breaking the PlayStation 3.
This is one of the most interesting and stunning posts I have ever seen in SD, and that’s saying a lot.
It’s worth pursuing, either here or in ATMB, where mods and admins can let their hair down. (Currently there’s another thread here that’s ATMB-ish, but stays, correctly I think, in GQ.)
Also, obligatory, but as hidden as I think my username shows a Joyce-head, nice username/post combo.
---
### Author:  [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)
#### Post date: [December 19, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661/29 "2013-12-19T19:44:52Z")
> [@Telemark](#):
>
> One could argue that the New York Times interests are for the public good and not to injure the government.
One could. But one would probably lose (though it depends on the nature of the secret.) I should note that this sort of thing really falls under 18 USC § 798 rather than § 793.
> [@](#):
>
> …defendants here contend that the First Amendment bars Congress from punishing those persons, like defendants, without a special relationship to the government for the disclosure of NDI. In essence, their position is that once a government secret has been leaked to the general public and the first line of defense thereby breached, the government has no recourse but to sit back and watch as the threat to the national security caused by the first disclosure multiplies with every subsequent disclosure. This position cannot be sustained. Although the question whether the government’s interest in preserving its national defense secrets is sufficient to trump the First Amendment rights of those not in a position of trust with the government is a more difficult question, and although the authority addressing this issue is sparse, both common sense and the relevant precedent point persuasively to the conclusion that the government can punish those outside of the government for the unauthorized receipt and deliberate retransmission of information relating to the national defense.
>
> United States v. Rosen, 445 F. Supp. 2d 602, 637 (E.D. Va. 2006) _amended_, 1:05CR225, 2006 WL 5049154 (E.D. Va. 2006) _and aff’d_, 557 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2009).
If you are thinking of the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. US, 403 U.S. 713, that was a different scenario: the government was asking for an injunction against the NYT preventing it from publishing material it did not contend was vital to US security interests.
---
### Author:  [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)
#### Post date: [December 19, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661/30 "2013-12-19T19:49:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#):
>
> One could. But one would probably lose (though it depends on the nature of the secret.) I should note that this sort of thing really falls under 18 USC § 798 rather than § 793.
>
> If you are thinking of the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. US, 403 U.S. 713, that was a different scenario: the government was asking for an injunction against the NYT preventing it from publishing material it did not contend was vital to US security interests.
Thank you, very informative. Ignorance fought, although the situation still looks like there is room for new rulings to shape things.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-media-is-illegal-to-own-in-the-united-states/676661.md?page=1)