PROTECTing the figure of innocence

Child pornography legislation and the queerness of childhood

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In US v. Williams (2008), the Supreme Court upheld the PROTECT Act; this law’s “pandering provision” prohibits the distribution and solicitation of child pornography, but does not distinguish between real child pornography and “virtual” child pornography (images that are digitally created or manipulated and do not depict a real child). Situating this case at the intersection of rhetorical studies of the law and queer studies, I read the Court’s opinions as rhetorical and cultural texts that circulate a strategic figuration of the child that emphasizes its sexual purity, vulnerability, and whiteness, and disavows the queerness of childhood desires. I argue that the Court’s decision virtualizes the figuration of the child through the performative “collateral speech” act, ultimately conflating virtual materials with real children. Furthermore, I contend that the language of the law, as it taxonomizes and disciplines illicit desires, also expresses desire through its passionate figurations of childhood innocence and adult sexual morality.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)251-272
Number of pages22
JournalQuarterly Journal of Speech
Volume105
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 3 2019

Fingerprint

pornography
childhood
legislation
figuration
Law
queer studies
sexual morality
speech act
court decision
Childhood
Pornography
Innocence
Legislation
Queerness
Supreme Court
vulnerability
act
language
Figuration

Keywords

  • Desire
  • Dissenting opinion
  • Legal rhetoric
  • US v Williams
  • Virtual

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Education

Cite this

PROTECTing the figure of innocence : Child pornography legislation and the queerness of childhood. / Rand, Erin.

In: Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 105, No. 3, 03.07.2019, p. 251-272.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d4cd7c50fa264af69742e91b37fded87,
title = "PROTECTing the figure of innocence: Child pornography legislation and the queerness of childhood",
abstract = "In US v. Williams (2008), the Supreme Court upheld the PROTECT Act; this law’s “pandering provision” prohibits the distribution and solicitation of child pornography, but does not distinguish between real child pornography and “virtual” child pornography (images that are digitally created or manipulated and do not depict a real child). Situating this case at the intersection of rhetorical studies of the law and queer studies, I read the Court’s opinions as rhetorical and cultural texts that circulate a strategic figuration of the child that emphasizes its sexual purity, vulnerability, and whiteness, and disavows the queerness of childhood desires. I argue that the Court’s decision virtualizes the figuration of the child through the performative “collateral speech” act, ultimately conflating virtual materials with real children. Furthermore, I contend that the language of the law, as it taxonomizes and disciplines illicit desires, also expresses desire through its passionate figurations of childhood innocence and adult sexual morality.",
keywords = "Desire, Dissenting opinion, Legal rhetoric, US v Williams, Virtual",
author = "Erin Rand",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/00335630.2019.1629001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "105",
pages = "251--272",
journal = "Quarterly Journal of Speech",
issn = "0033-5630",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - PROTECTing the figure of innocence

T2 - Child pornography legislation and the queerness of childhood

AU - Rand, Erin

PY - 2019/7/3

Y1 - 2019/7/3

N2 - In US v. Williams (2008), the Supreme Court upheld the PROTECT Act; this law’s “pandering provision” prohibits the distribution and solicitation of child pornography, but does not distinguish between real child pornography and “virtual” child pornography (images that are digitally created or manipulated and do not depict a real child). Situating this case at the intersection of rhetorical studies of the law and queer studies, I read the Court’s opinions as rhetorical and cultural texts that circulate a strategic figuration of the child that emphasizes its sexual purity, vulnerability, and whiteness, and disavows the queerness of childhood desires. I argue that the Court’s decision virtualizes the figuration of the child through the performative “collateral speech” act, ultimately conflating virtual materials with real children. Furthermore, I contend that the language of the law, as it taxonomizes and disciplines illicit desires, also expresses desire through its passionate figurations of childhood innocence and adult sexual morality.

AB - In US v. Williams (2008), the Supreme Court upheld the PROTECT Act; this law’s “pandering provision” prohibits the distribution and solicitation of child pornography, but does not distinguish between real child pornography and “virtual” child pornography (images that are digitally created or manipulated and do not depict a real child). Situating this case at the intersection of rhetorical studies of the law and queer studies, I read the Court’s opinions as rhetorical and cultural texts that circulate a strategic figuration of the child that emphasizes its sexual purity, vulnerability, and whiteness, and disavows the queerness of childhood desires. I argue that the Court’s decision virtualizes the figuration of the child through the performative “collateral speech” act, ultimately conflating virtual materials with real children. Furthermore, I contend that the language of the law, as it taxonomizes and disciplines illicit desires, also expresses desire through its passionate figurations of childhood innocence and adult sexual morality.

KW - Desire

KW - Dissenting opinion

KW - Legal rhetoric

KW - US v Williams

KW - Virtual

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068267331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85068267331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00335630.2019.1629001

DO - 10.1080/00335630.2019.1629001

M3 - Article

VL - 105

SP - 251

EP - 272

JO - Quarterly Journal of Speech

JF - Quarterly Journal of Speech

SN - 0033-5630

IS - 3

ER -