For the record, here's info about the FEDERAL statute regarding child pornography passed in 1977 so that you can specifically quote:
===========================================
II. STATUTES
A. Child Pornography
1. 18 United States Code § 2252
{14} Congressional interest in balancing First Amendment rights with concerns about obscenity in the wake of the famous Miller v. California case [28] led to our first national child pornography law in 1977. A combination of factors prompted Congress to pass the original federal child pornography statute: The Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977. [29] First, the production and availability of child pornography had increased in the 1970s. [30] Second, some members feared that an application of the obscenity test in Miller [31] might allow for a child pornography market. Congress' concern about treading on sacred First Amendment ground can be seen in the decision to adopt a statute in which the distribution of child pornography can be criminalized only if the material were also legally obscene under the Miller test. [32]
{15} The stated purpose of the 1977 Act was to establish federal criminal penalties for the depiction of minors as participants in sexually explicit conduct in pornographic films, books, or other visual media. [33] The Act also increased Federal penalties for interstate traffic in obscene materials depicting children. [34] Congress has amended the provisions of the Act over time to expand its protections. Each important amendment is discussed below.
{16} Shortly after Congress passed the 1977 Act, the United States Supreme Court in New York v. Ferber [35] made significant distinctions between obscenity, applying the familiar Miller standard, and non-obscene child pornography, applying a New York law that was stricter than federal law. Ultimately, the Ferber Court listed five reasons why sexually explicit materials (such as child pornography), while not obscene under the Miller standard, could be restricted without violating the First Amendment. [36]
{17} In response to the Ferber decision, Congress passed the Child Protection Act of 1984, [37] expanding Section 2252 to its full constitutional limits. Congress did this by eliminating the requirement that child pornography be obscene to be actionable and by eliminating a requirement that a commercial transaction be involved. [38] Congress also increased the age of a "minor" from 16 to 18 years. [39]
{18} In 1986, Congress passed the Child Sexual Abuse and Pornography Act of 1986, [40] banning the production and use of advertisements for child pornography. [41] In 1988, Congress enacted the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, [42] banning the use of computers to transmit advertisements and visual depictions of child pornography, among other things. [43]
[29] See Pub. L. No. 95-225, 92 Stat. 7 (1978) (current version at 18 U.S.C.S. § 2251 (1999)).
[30] See Margaret A. Healy, Child pornography: an international perspective, para.VIII, World Congress Against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children. (This paper was prepared as a working document for the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children by for ECPAT) (visited July 17, 1999) .
[31] See Miller, 413 U.S. at 24; "(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Kios v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229, 230 (quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 489 (1957)) ; (B) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and © whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Id.
[32] See S. REP. NO. 95-438, at 17-18 (1977), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 40, 55. "When first passed, Sec. 2252 punished one who "knowingly transports or ships in interstate or foreign commerce or mails, for the purpose of sale or distribution for sale, any obscene visual or print medium" if it involved the use of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Pub. L. 95-225, 92 Stat. 7 (emphasis added)." United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 78 (1994) .
[33] See Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-225, 92 Stat. 7 (1978).
[34] See id.
[35] 458 U.S. 747 (1982) .
[36] "The Court gave four primary reasons why there should be greater leeway in criminalizing child pornography. "First. It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in 'safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor' is 'compelling.''' Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756-57 (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 607 (1982)) . "Second. The distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children...." Ferber, 458 U.S. at 759. "Third. The advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation." Id. at 761. "Fourth. The value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis." Id. at 762.” See also, Fears, supra note 13.
[37] See Fears, supra note 13.
[38] See id. (citing Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1995: Hearings on S. 1237 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. 14 (1996), at 24 (statement of Jeffrey J. Dupilka, Deputy Chief Postal Inspector for Criminal Investigations, U.S. Postal Inspection Service.)) .
[39] See id.
[40] See id.
[41] See id.
[42] See id.
[43] See id.
Source: http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/4-2/cox.html
===========================================
II. STATUTES
A. Child Pornography
1. 18 United States Code § 2252
{14} Congressional interest in balancing First Amendment rights with concerns about obscenity in the wake of the famous Miller v. California case [28] led to our first national child pornography law in 1977. A combination of factors prompted Congress to pass the original federal child pornography statute: The Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977. [29] First, the production and availability of child pornography had increased in the 1970s. [30] Second, some members feared that an application of the obscenity test in Miller [31] might allow for a child pornography market. Congress' concern about treading on sacred First Amendment ground can be seen in the decision to adopt a statute in which the distribution of child pornography can be criminalized only if the material were also legally obscene under the Miller test. [32]
{15} The stated purpose of the 1977 Act was to establish federal criminal penalties for the depiction of minors as participants in sexually explicit conduct in pornographic films, books, or other visual media. [33] The Act also increased Federal penalties for interstate traffic in obscene materials depicting children. [34] Congress has amended the provisions of the Act over time to expand its protections. Each important amendment is discussed below.
{16} Shortly after Congress passed the 1977 Act, the United States Supreme Court in New York v. Ferber [35] made significant distinctions between obscenity, applying the familiar Miller standard, and non-obscene child pornography, applying a New York law that was stricter than federal law. Ultimately, the Ferber Court listed five reasons why sexually explicit materials (such as child pornography), while not obscene under the Miller standard, could be restricted without violating the First Amendment. [36]
{17} In response to the Ferber decision, Congress passed the Child Protection Act of 1984, [37] expanding Section 2252 to its full constitutional limits. Congress did this by eliminating the requirement that child pornography be obscene to be actionable and by eliminating a requirement that a commercial transaction be involved. [38] Congress also increased the age of a "minor" from 16 to 18 years. [39]
{18} In 1986, Congress passed the Child Sexual Abuse and Pornography Act of 1986, [40] banning the production and use of advertisements for child pornography. [41] In 1988, Congress enacted the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, [42] banning the use of computers to transmit advertisements and visual depictions of child pornography, among other things. [43]
[29] See Pub. L. No. 95-225, 92 Stat. 7 (1978) (current version at 18 U.S.C.S. § 2251 (1999)).
[30] See Margaret A. Healy, Child pornography: an international perspective, para.VIII, World Congress Against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children. (This paper was prepared as a working document for the World Congress against Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children by for ECPAT) (visited July 17, 1999) .
[31] See Miller, 413 U.S. at 24; "(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Kios v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229, 230 (quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 489 (1957)) ; (B) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and © whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Id.
[32] See S. REP. NO. 95-438, at 17-18 (1977), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 40, 55. "When first passed, Sec. 2252 punished one who "knowingly transports or ships in interstate or foreign commerce or mails, for the purpose of sale or distribution for sale, any obscene visual or print medium" if it involved the use of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Pub. L. 95-225, 92 Stat. 7 (emphasis added)." United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 78 (1994) .
[33] See Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-225, 92 Stat. 7 (1978).
[34] See id.
[35] 458 U.S. 747 (1982) .
[36] "The Court gave four primary reasons why there should be greater leeway in criminalizing child pornography. "First. It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in 'safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor' is 'compelling.''' Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 756-57 (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 607 (1982)) . "Second. The distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to the sexual abuse of children...." Ferber, 458 U.S. at 759. "Third. The advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation." Id. at 761. "Fourth. The value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd sexual conduct is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis." Id. at 762.” See also, Fears, supra note 13.
[37] See Fears, supra note 13.
[38] See id. (citing Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1995: Hearings on S. 1237 Before the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. 14 (1996), at 24 (statement of Jeffrey J. Dupilka, Deputy Chief Postal Inspector for Criminal Investigations, U.S. Postal Inspection Service.)) .
[39] See id.
[40] See id.
[41] See id.
[42] See id.
[43] See id.
Source: http://grove.ufl.edu/~techlaw/4-2/cox.html