This is a really sensitive topic. This particular court case has sparked a great deal of debate and requires some understanding of the Miller v. California and New York v. Farber. Two semesters ago, my media law class spent some time looking at each of these cases plus the one we're discussing, and even after doing so, I still find this ruling a little disturbing. Perhaps a good place to start with this question is to define the terms “pornography” and “obscenity.” According to Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media, “pornography is a broad term used to describe all sexually explicit material intended for the purpose of sexual titillation.” (Zelezny, p. 448). The term “obscenity,” according to the same text, “has taken on a narrower legal meaning, indicating a class of sexual material so offensive that the Supreme Court finds it to have virtually no First Amendment protection” (Zelezny, p. 448) . Moving on to the issue at hand, the Child Pornography Act (CPPA) of 1996 was written to protect children from sexual exploitation....