## Facts

- X-Citement Video, Inc., operated by Rubin Gottesman, distributed pornographic videos in California.
- Federal and local law enforcement conducted an undercover operation and purchased pornographic tapes from Gottesman.
- Some tapes included performances by Traci Lords, later revealed to have performed in pornography while under age 18.
- Gottesman was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1)–(2) for knowingly transporting, shipping, receiving, distributing, or reproducing visual depictions involving a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
- Gottesman and X-Citement Video were convicted in federal district court.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding the statute was facially unconstitutional because it did not require proof that the defendant knew a performer was a minor.

## Issues

1. Whether “knowingly” in 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1)–(2) applies only to the defendant’s acts (transporting, receiving, distributing, reproducing) or also to the depiction’s sexually explicit nature and the performers’ minority.
2. Whether § 2252 is unconstitutional if it permits conviction without proof that the defendant knew the depiction involved a minor.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court held that “knowingly” in § 2252(a)(1)–(2) applies to the sexually explicit character of the material and to the age of the performers.
- As construed, the statute requires the government to prove the defendant knew the depiction was sexually explicit and involved a minor.
- This construction avoided serious constitutional difficulties associated with imposing liability for distributing constitutionally protected adult pornography based on an unknown fact.

## Legal Principles

- Federal criminal statutes are generally presumed to include a scienter requirement for elements that separate lawful conduct from criminal conduct.
- When a statute is “fairly possible” to interpret in a way that avoids serious constitutional problems, courts may adopt that construction (constitutional avoidance).
- In child-pornography trafficking offenses under § 2252(a)(1)–(2), the government must prove the defendant’s knowledge of (1) the sexually explicit nature of the depiction and (2) the minority of at least one performer.

## Conclusion

The Court interpreted § 2252 to require proof that a defendant knew both that the material was sexually explicit and that it depicted a minor, sustaining the statute against a First Amendment challenge and reinstating the availability of convictions under that scienter-based reading.


United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994)