## Facts

- Customs officials intercepted mail tied to videotape orders with sexually suggestive titles sent to a Pennsylvania address, with payment linked to Stephen A. Knox.
- Investigators obtained a search warrant and searched Knox’s apartment, seizing videotapes, a catalog with marked selections, and mail-order materials connected to the tapes.
- The videotapes depicted prepubescent girls (often in swimsuits or leotards) engaged in activities such as gymnastics and dance.
- The camera work repeatedly zoomed in on and lingered over the girls’ genital and pubic areas, despite those areas being covered by clothing.
- After a bench trial, the district court found the tapes depicted a “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” and convicted Knox of federal offenses for receiving and possessing child pornography through the mails.

## Issues

1. Whether a visual depiction can constitute a “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252 and 2256 when the minor’s genitals or pubic area are covered by clothing.
2. Whether interpreting the statute to reach such non-nude depictions renders the law unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Knox’s knowing receipt/possession and the required interstate or foreign commerce nexus.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the conviction and judgment.
- The court held that nudity is not required: depictions that focus on a minor’s clothed genitals or pubic area may qualify as a “lascivious exhibition.”
- The court rejected the overbreadth challenge, concluding the statute, as construed and applied, did not reach a substantial amount of protected speech.
- The court found sufficient evidence that Knox knowingly ordered/received the tapes and that the materials traveled through interstate or foreign commerce via the mails.

## Legal Principles

- “Lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” under 18 U.S.C. § 2256 may be established by the depiction’s focus, framing, and presentation of the genital/pubic region; nudity is not an element.
- The “lascivious” requirement limits the statute’s reach and excludes ordinary depictions of children absent a sexualized focus on the relevant body areas.
- Child pornography involving actual minors is not protected by the First Amendment; an overbreadth claim requires showing the statute reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected material relative to its legitimate sweep.
- Knowledge and the commerce element may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including ordering records, catalogs, and mail-order materials linking the defendant to the contraband and its movement through the mails.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that federal child-pornography statutes cover sexually exploitative depictions that make a minor’s clothed genital or pubic area the erotic focus, upheld the statute against an overbreadth challenge, and affirmed Knox’s conviction based on sufficient evidence of knowledge and the interstate/foreign-mail nexus.


United States v. Knox, 32 F.3d 733 (3d Cir. 1994)