Miller, 413 U.S. at 30, 93 S.Ct. 2607). We, and the jury, evaluate whether the content in question appealed to a prurient interest in sex based upon contemporary community standards. See Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500, 107 S.Ct. 1918, 95 L.Ed.2d 439 (1987) (citing Smith, 431 U.S. at 291, 97 S.Ct. 1756); see also Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 874 n. 39, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997) (quoting Miller, 413 U.S. at 30, 93 S.Ct. 2607). We hold that a jury could reasonably find that the image in this case so appealed. Rogers sent the image in question to a thirteen-year-old minor, whom he believed to be thirteen, in the course of di c., 539 U.S. 194, 200, 123 S.Ct. 2297, 156 L.Ed.2d 221 (2003) (opinion of Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas, JJ.) (<HOLDING>). The Court also stresses that children,
recognizing limits on an individuals right to privacy and requiring the government to move a compelling interest only if there will be disclosure of protected information recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public holding that the government interest in preventing crime is compelling recognizing shielding the public from unwanted exposure to pornography as a government interest sufficiently compelling to uphold a law requiring public libraries to install filtering software on their computers or else lose federal funding recognizing the public interest exception