What are the full texts and differences between 18 U.S.C. §1466A and §2252A under the PROTECT Act?
Executive summary
Section 1466A and Section 2252A are sibling federal statutes created or amended by the PROTECT Act to target sexual depictions of minors: §1466A criminalizes obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children — including drawings, cartoons, sculpture, and paintings — and expressly treats the existence of an actual minor as nonrequired for the offense, while §2252A addresses “certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography,” sets evidentiary and civil-remedy rules, and carries enhanced penalties for distribution, receipt, and possession tied to the PROTECT Act’s amendments [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What §1466A says and how it works
Section 1466A makes it a federal crime to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess — with or without intent to distribute — “a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting” that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct that is obscene or that depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct (as created by the PROTECT Act), and the statute explicitly states that it is not a required element that the minor depicted actually exist, thus reaching purely fictional or computer-generated images in some circumstances [1] [2].
2. What §2252A says and how it works
Section 2252A is the broader statutory framework labeled “Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography,” criminalizing production, distribution, receipt, and possession of child pornography as defined in the statute and including procedural provisions — notably limits on admitting identifying information about minors in prosecutions and a government-requested jury instruction so absence of identifying data does not permit inference about whether an image is of an actual minor — and it also authorizes civil actions by persons aggrieved by violations of §2252A or §1466A [3] [5].
3. Penalties and sentencing interplay between the two sections
Penalties for violations of §1466A are tied directly to §2252A’s penalty structure: §1466A references the penalties provided in §2252A(b) and (b), including enhancements for prior convictions, and the PROTECT Act increased maximum penalties across Chapter 110 — for example raising statutory maximums in §2252A subsections — while the Sentencing Commission and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines treat §1466A offenses within the same guideline framework used for §2252A offenses unless specific departures apply [6] [4] [7] [8].
4. Defenses, mens rea, and statutory limits
Section 1466A incorporates the same affirmative defense that appears in §2252(c) and §2252A(d) for knowing possession without intent to distribute, meaning certain defenses available in child-pornography prosecutions were extended to §1466A charges; both statutes require knowledge in their elements in many contexts, and §1466A’s nonrequired-element clause for an actual minor shifts legal focus to whether the depiction is obscene or otherwise meets statutory criteria [1] [9].
5. Scope differences, litigation, and constitutional debate
The core difference is scope: §2252A targets material that “constitutes or contains child pornography” as classically defined and amended by Congress, while §1466A specifically criminalizes obscene or sexually explicit visual representations of minors even if non-photographic or fictional, thereby reaching drawings, cartoons, and computer-generated images; that expansion has prompted constitutional litigation and debate over First Amendment limits and vagueness — the PROTECT Act’s attempt to criminalize certain virtual depictions produced controversy and led to litigation addressing overbreadth and solicitation provisions [1] [10].
6. What the cited sources do and don’t show
The statutory texts and Congressional explanatory material provided by the Legal Information Institute, government publishing services, EveryCRS, and PROTECT Act legislative history make clear the language, penalty linkages, sentencing guideline treatment, and civil/evidentiary provisions described above [6] [3] [1] [2] [4]. The assembled sources document legislative intent to reach non-photographic depictions and to increase penalties but do not in these excerpts resolve fine-grained constitutional questions in individual circuits or catalog every judicial outcome; where case-law specifics are relevant, that evidence is not fully contained in the provided materials [10].