| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Justices: Child pr*n is not protected speech |
| 2008-05-20 |
| The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a law aimed at preventing child pornography, ruling a provision dealing with "pandering" illicit material does not violate constitutional protections on free speech. The 7-2 ruling rejected suggestions the law is overly broad, and will stifle a range of expressive or artistic material that is not obscene. The case involves Michael Williams, convicted in a Florida federal court for promoting child pornography on the Internet. A 2003 federal law made it a crime not only to produce and possess child porn, but also to "pander" material, conveying the belief that material contains minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The pandering provision covers anyone who "advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits" this material. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Congress' latest attempt to deal with this "threat" was legally "successful." The "Protect" Act was Congress' latest attempt to control graphic images on the Internet. Previous efforts were struck down by the high court on First Amendment issues. As part of a 2004 sting operation, an undercover Secret Service agent (using the screen name "Lisa--n--Miami") communicated with Williams in an Internet chat room. Williams allegedly wrote, "Dad of toddler has 'good' pics of her an (sic) me for swap of your toddler pics, or live cam." He posted nonpornographic photos of a young girl and claimed he had "hc," or hard-core, kiddie pictures, prosecutors contend. The man then allegedly posted photos of youngsters involved in "sexually explicit conduct," according to court records. Twenty-two other child porn images were found on his home computer. A federal appeals court upheld a possession conviction against Williams, but threw out the separate soliciting charge, which carried a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. A three-judge panel concluded the provision was "substantially overbroad and vague," and that "non-commercial, non-inciteful promotion of illegal child pornography, even if repugnant, is protected free speech." In other words, the judges said merely talking about child porn is not necessarily criminal. Scalia said judges had proper discretion to decide when anti-pornography laws should be properly applied, but he noted that such illicit material has increased in recent years. "Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens," he said. "This court held unconstitutional Congress' previous attempt to meet this new threat, and Congress responded with a carefully crafted attempt to eliminate the First Amendment problems we [earlier] identified." The Bush administration urged the high court to accept the case, saying the overall impact of the law was being held "hostage to a few hypothetical scenarios." Solicitor General Paul Clement argued to the justices that not only is promoting real child porn against the law, but "speech that falsely proposes an unlawful transaction is likewise unprotected." Clement announced last week that he is stepping down from his post next month. But during oral arguments, six justices offered specific examples they said might unfairly target someone who was engaged in lawful, artistic or editorial free speech. Among them were mainstream movies such as "Lolita," "Traffic," and "Titanic," all of which depicted scenarios in which underage girls were engaging in simulated sex. Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. Souter wrote that a double standard exists since those pandering images not involving minors engaging in simulated sex could now be prosecuted, but possession of those images would not be subject to prosecution. Looks like Souter and Ginsburg can't tell the difference between child pr*n and a movie. How the Fuc& did they get to be on the supreme court? "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 justices five years ago struck down a 1996 federal law dealing with child porn, giving legal protection to youthful sexual images that were nether obscene nor involved sexual abuse. In its ruling, the high court said thinking dirty thoughts is not necessarily criminal, and the government cannot "suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech." Most of the 2003 Protect Act's provision have survived judicial scrutiny. A coalition of free speech and commercial interests were supporting Williams' constitutional claims, including the Free Speech Coalition, online media retailer Amazon.com and National Coalition Against Censorship. On the other side, 27 states backed the United States, as well as a range of child advocacy groups. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #8 meh. Paco? |
| Posted by: George Smiley 2008-05-20 14:43 |
| #7 More like walking into a bank with a toy gun and demanding cash. Unless the orange cap is still on the end of the gun, the usually clueless teller will act as though it is a real gun. Most jurisdictions don't differentiate whether the robber had a real gun or not, the intent understood by the second party was what is considered the determining factor. The defense that it really wasn't a gun doesn't hold up. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-05-20 13:04 |
| #6 There was a lot of fluff in the report. However, I do not think this was a good decision. It overturned a strongly worded opinion from the 11th Circuit (FL,AL,GA): "The Atlanta-based court said it makes a crime out of merely *talking about* illegal images or possessing innocent materials that someone else might believe is pr0nography." The closest thing I could compare this to is hate crimes legislation, where you can be punished for what the court thinks you *might* have been thinking. For example, the SCOTUS holds that it is a crime to "promote or pander" child pr0n, irrespective to if you even *have* child pr0n. So if you say that the laws against child pr0n are too harsh, are you "promoting" it? In fact, can child pr0n even be discussed anymore? Might this Rantburg thread be potentially unlawful, if some harasser decides that it has "pr0nographic" content? How about if a software filter detects that a potentially unlawful word or words has been used? |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-05-20 12:08 |
| #5 Want more of the same types ? Just put Hussein in as Prez. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700 2008-05-20 11:18 |
| #4 I'm just glad it went down in such a blaze of defeat. As for the other two wastes of black cloth, they will jump the other way of what is right just to show they are "progressive". Even if it means harming children in the most disgusting way possible. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-05-20 09:53 |
| #3 Souter and ginsberg are a disgrace to that court. Good job guys. Victimizing young children does not fall under a "right" Stupid. So damn stupid this is a legal question at all. |
| Posted by: newc 2008-05-20 09:27 |
| #2 Ruthie? Whaddya expect. Souter? Probably pissed he's gotta get rid of his collection. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-05-20 09:17 |
| #1 Looks like Souter and Ginsburg can't tell the difference between child pr*n and a movie. How the Fuc& did they get to be on the supreme court? Sick as Hell, GodLess, Socialist, Trash is the correct answer Gorb. /but Ima just a regular redundant guy. |
| Posted by: RD 2008-05-20 05:14 |