FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W161837169> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W161837169 endingPage "226" @default.
• W161837169 startingPage "191" @default.
• W161837169 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION In June 2000, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) released a sobering report, indicating that sexual predators on are targeting more children than previously thought. The report, entitled Online Victimization: A Report on Nation's Youth,1 concluded that in United States, approximately one in five children ages ten to seventeen received a sexual solicitation or approach over in past year alone.2 The study also found that of children same age, three percent had received an aggressive sexual solicitation, meaning that solicitor had sought to meet child, successfully talked to child on telephone, or sent child letters, money, or gifts.3 One child in seventeen was threatened or harassed.4 Of children who received such solicitations, twenty-five percent reported incident to a parent, but fewer than ten percent of victims ever reported these sexual solicitations to law enforcement authorities or to provider.5 In light of these problems, report concluded that many traditional attempt and solicitation statutes may not sufficiently address solicitation and that [a]lthough it is a daunting task, criminal statutes need to be systematically reviewed with in mind to make sure that relevant statutes cover behaviors,6 In response to these concerns, state legislatures have revised their criminal statutes to create a new species of crime called Internet luring, or enticement.7 Such a crime is patterned after traditional crimes of solicitation and attempt but specifically addresses sexual solicitation of a minor over Internet. However, a recent series of federal cases threatens validity of these statutes. Several federal courts have held that similar state laws, which prohibit dissemination of pornography to minors via Internet, are per se invalid under dormant Commerce Clause because they impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. The severe limitation on state police power posed by these decisions threatens to block ability of state governments to protect their citizens. As one scholar explained, the dormant Commerce Clause argument, if accepted, threatens to invalidate nearly every state regulation of communications . . . . This explains why dormant Commerce Clause has been called a 'nuclear bomb of a legal theory' against state regulations.8 Although luring statutes have not yet been struck down under dormant Commerce Clause, this line of reasoning provides predators with grounds to challenge constitutionality of these statutes. This Comment concludes that such challenges should fail because per se approach used by certain federal courts is not warranted by Supreme Court jurisprudence.9 As such, courts should rely on balancing approach set forth in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.,10 which would generally uphold state regulation of stemming from a legitimate concern to protect minors from sexual predation. Part II of this Comment describes state luring statutes and Supreme Court's dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and Part III demonstrates confusion resulting from divergent federal and state applications of dormant Commerce Clause to state regulation. Part IV argues that per se approach used by federal courts is improper in this context and that Pike balancing test provides a more suitable analysis. Finally, Part V offers a brief conclusion that reviews constitutionality and necessity of state statutes. II. BACKGROUND A. Luring Statutes Many states have recently enacted what may be termed luring statutes, which criminalize any attempt to knowingly solicit a minor to engage in sexual activity by communicating through Internet.11 These statutes come in a variety of forms but generally punish any person who (1) uses a computer or similar device; (2) to contact a person whom he knows or believes to be a minor; (3) to solicit, encourage, entice, or lure him or her; (4) for purposes of engaging in sexual activity in violation of state laws. …" @default.
• W161837169 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W161837169 creator A5013958852 @default.
• W161837169 date "2005-01-01" @default.
• W161837169 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W161837169 title "Salvaging States' Rights To Protect Children from Internet Predation: State Power To Regulate Internet Activity Under the Dormant Commerce Clause" @default.
• W161837169 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W161837169 type Work @default.
• W161837169 sameAs 161837169 @default.
• W161837169 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W161837169 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W161837169 hasAuthorship W161837169A5013958852 @default.
• W161837169 hasConcept C110875604 @default.
• W161837169 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W161837169 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W161837169 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W161837169 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W161837169 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W161837169 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W161837169 hasConcept C2780262971 @default.
• W161837169 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W161837169 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W161837169 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W161837169 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W161837169 hasConceptScore W161837169C110875604 @default.
• W161837169 hasConceptScore W161837169C11413529 @default.
• W161837169 hasConceptScore W161837169C136764020 @default.
• W161837169 hasConceptScore W161837169C15744967 @default.
• W161837169 hasConceptScore W161837169C17319257 @default.
• W161837169 hasConceptScore W161837169C17744445 @default.
• W161837169 hasConceptScore W161837169C199539241 @default.
• W161837169 hasConceptScore W161837169C2780262971 @default.
• W161837169 hasConceptScore W161837169C41008148 @default.
• W161837169 hasConceptScore W161837169C48103436 @default.
• W161837169 hasConceptScore W161837169C73484699 @default.
• W161837169 hasConceptScore W161837169C83009810 @default.
• W161837169 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W161837169 hasLocation W1618371691 @default.
• W161837169 hasOpenAccess W161837169 @default.
• W161837169 hasPrimaryLocation W1618371691 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W126772759 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W1481027608 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W1495992856 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W1520418254 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W1529572002 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W1581460961 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W182706554 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W2293958025 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W2399396 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W243336190 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W273381367 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W299022937 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W3121308370 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W3121474800 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W3129158205 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W31844576 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W334931751 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W349731965 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W39983137 @default.
• W161837169 hasRelatedWork W836103467 @default.
• W161837169 hasVolume "2005" @default.
• W161837169 isParatext "false" @default.
• W161837169 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W161837169 magId "161837169" @default.
• W161837169 workType "article" @default.