First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
 
High court upholds part of child-porn law

By The Associated Press
05.19.08

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today upheld criminal penalties for promoting child pornography.

The Court, in a 7-2 decision, brushed aside concerns that the law could apply to mainstream movies that depict adolescent sex, classic literature or innocent e-mails that describe pictures of grandchildren.

The ruling in U.S. v. Williams upheld part of the 2003 PROTECT Act, a federal law that also prohibits possession of child porn. It replaced an earlier law against child pornography that the Court struck down as unconstitutional.

The law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child porn. It does not require that someone actually possess child pornography. Opponents have said the law could apply to movies like "Traffic" or "Titanic" that depict adolescent sex.

But Justice Antonin Scalia, in his opinion for the Court, said the law does not cover movie sex. There is no "possibility that virtual child pornography or sex between youthful-looking adult actors might be covered by the term 'simulated sexual intercourse.'" Scalia wrote.

Likewise, Scalia said, First Amendment protections do not apply to "offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography."

Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented. Souter said promotion of images that are not real children engaging in pornography still could be the basis for prosecution under the law. Possession of those images, on the other hand, may not be prosecuted, Souter said.

"I believe that maintaining the First Amendment protection of expression we have previously held to cover fake child pornography requires a limit to the law's criminalization of pandering proposals," Souter said.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the provision. The Atlanta-based court said the provision made a crime out of merely talking about illegal images or possessing innocent materials that someone else might believe is pornography.

In the appeals court's view, the law could apply to an e-mail sent by a grandparent titled "Good pics of kids in bed," showing grandchildren dressed in pajamas.

In 2002, the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of a 1996 child-pornography law because the provisions called into question legitimate educational, scientific or artistic depictions of youthful sex.

Congress responded the next year with the PROTECT Act, which contains the provision under challenge in the current case.

Authorities arrested Michael Williams in an undercover operation aimed at fighting child exploitation on the Internet. A Secret Service agent engaged Williams in an Internet chat room, where they swapped non-pornographic photographs. Williams advertised himself as "Dad of toddler has 'good' pics of her and me for swap of your toddler pics, or live cam."

After the initial photo exchange, Williams allegedly posted seven images of actual minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Agents who executed a search warrant found 22 child-porn images on Williams' home computer.

Williams also was convicted of possession of child pornography. That conviction, and the resulting five-year prison term, was not challenged.


Previous
High court agrees to review child-porn law
11th Circuit had found pandering provision of PROTECT Act of 2003 overbroad, impermissibly vague. 03.26.07

Related

Court opens term with First Amendment case

2007-08 Supreme Court term preview by Tony Mauro Justices to decide three election- or voting-related cases, consider appeal from government on Internet law. 10.01.07

Court may have found child-porn law it can support
By Tony Mauro Idea of limiting interpretation of 2003 PROTECT Act so it won’t be overly broad seems to take hold among justices. 10.31.07

Williams may be term's most far-reaching speech ruling
By Tony Mauro Child-porn case appears to expand range of speech that falls outside of First Amendment protection. 07.07.08

For better or worse, wild wild Web being fenced in
By Gene Policinski Legislation, court decisions, self-imposed restrictions and private vendor rules are creating limits in wide-open speech country. 07.13.08

2007-08 Supreme Court case tracker

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print


Last system update: Thursday, August 21, 2008 | 09:12:30
 SEARCH  MORE
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
Video/RSS/podcasts
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment
reports

First Reports
Supreme Court
Experts
Columnists
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Glossary
Freedom Sings™
Events
First Amendment
Schools

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment
Library

Lesson plans
freedomforum.org
Newseum
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links