The baby in that photo is Spencer Elden, who was four months old at the time the photograph was taken. He turned 18 in 2009. In 2021, at the age of 30, he filed his lawsuit and after two rounds of amended pleadings, filed a second amended complaint in January 2022. Mr. Elden asserts a single claim against the defendants for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows victims of child pornography to bring a civil cause of action.Mr. Elden’s operative complaint alleges that the cover of Nevermind depicting him in the nude constitutes child pornography and that the defendants “knowingly possessed, transported, reproduced, advertised, promoted, presented, distributed, provided and obtained” this alleged child pornography depicting Mr. Elden. He further alleges that the image had been reproduced and redistributed during the “10 years preceding this action and since,” pointing out that Nevermind had been re-released in September 2021. He claimed that he had suffered personal injury “as a result of each defendant’s ongoing violation.”The defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Elden’s complaint, arguing that it was barred by the applicable 10-year statute of limitations for such claims. The district court agreed with the defendants and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Mr. Elden appealed that dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Da

Doe v. Hesketh, ___ F.3d ___ (3d Cir. 2016). Today, the Third Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Greenaway, ruled in a case of a child victim of federal crimes related to child pornography, under 18 U.S.C. §2255. The government had prosecuted a defendant, Mancuso, under that statute, and Mancuso had entered a guilty plea to one of the charges, sexual exploitation of a child.

is hosting a “proscribed visual depiction relating to a child” (referred to in this Update as a “visual depiction” or “proscribed visual depiction”) it must, as soon as possible but no more than 48 hours (or two business days for “small providers” as defined in the bill) after receiving the notice: Remove the visual depiction and notify the complainant it has done so, orNotify the complainant that it has determined the depiction referenced is not a proscribed visual depiction, is unable to remove the visual depiction using reasonable means, or has determined the notification is duplicative.END CSAMReporting and removal of CSAM. “Social media companies” (as defined) are required to provide a notice process that allows individuals to report CSAM and are required to remove that material within 10 days of receiving that notice.Increased Risk of LiabilityEARN ITThe bill adds a carve out to online providers’ immunity under Section 230 to permit claims against them for: Civil claims under 18 USC § 2255 where the provider’s underlying conduct violates §§ 2252 or 2252A.Civil or criminal claims regarding the advertisement, promotion, presentation, distribution, or solicitation of CSAM.It also provides limited protections for encryption by shielding providers from specified independent bases of liability for their use of encryption.STOP CSAMSTOP CSAM would permit victims to sue interactive computer services and software distribution services under 18 USC § 2255 for any injuries as a result of their (1) intentional, knowing, or reckless promotion or facilitation of a violation of 18 USC §§ 1591, 1594(c), 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A; and (2) intentional, knowing, reckless hosting, or storing of CSAM or making CSAM available to any person. Similar to EARN IT, this bill provides limited protections for the use of encryption but does not propose any modifications to Section 230.The bill would also create a new statutory section, 18 USC § 2260B, that provides that interactive computer services w

Now, should the EARN IT Act pass as amended, it will create three carve-outs to Section 230 immunity for civil and criminal actions representing a shift in the act from an incentive-based system to a post hoc enforcement and regulatory regime. The recent amendments are carve-outs to the broad immunity currently afforded by Section 230 and would allow the following types of actions to be brought against interactive computer service companies:Private civil action under 18 U.S.C. §2255. This amendment would provide a civil remedy counterpart to existing federal statues criminalizing child sexual abuse materials.

See 18 U.S.C. § 1595(a).Last week, President Biden signed the Eliminating Limits to Justice for Child Sex Abuse Victims Act into law, which eliminates the statute of limitations for TVPRA civil claims brought by minors. See 18 U.S.C. § 2255. Previously, the statute of limitations was 10 years after the plaintiff's 18th birthday or 10 years after the injury was discovered.The new law is not retroactive (i.e., claims that were barred before the Act's passage remain barred).

Just over a year ago, on August 24, 2021, Spencer Elden sued the band Nirvana and related parties for child pornography for publishing his image on the cover of Nirvana’s iconic 1991 Nevermind Album..The Complaint alleged child pornography (18 USC 2255(a).and 1595), Negligence, violation of Cal. Civ. Code 1708.85, Intrusion into Private Affairs, and Invasion of Privacy.

Based on the new evidence, the district court vacated Mr. Williams' convictions on the grounds that it was sua sponte exercising its inherent power to correct fraud on the court. The 10th holds Congress overrode that inherent power, and the authority to prevent a miscarriage of justice, by adopting 18 USC § 2255(h). As a consequence, Mr. Williams could not get relief except by first obtaining authorization to file a petition from the 10th and by proving his innocence by clear and convincing evidence, as opposed to by a preponderance.