Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | T | Trial

With narrow reading of child porn law, Court dodges a dilemma.

Article Excerpt
In United States v. Williams, the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for pandering child pornography under a section of the 2003 ProtectAct. (1) The defendant, Michael Williams, argued that the statute was both overly broad under the First Amendment and vague under the Fifth Amendment.

The 7-2 opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia begins by reviewing the six elements of the crime in question. According to the act, a person is guilty if he or she:

(1) knowingly (2) advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits (3) through the mails, or in interstate or foreign commerce ... (4) any material or purported material (5) in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, (6) that the material ... is or contains (a) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (b) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct ... (2)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

"Sexually explicit conduct" includes various kinds of "actual or simulated" sexual behavior, as well as "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person." (3)

In short, the law prohibits the promotion or pandering of sexually explicit material involving minors, regardless of whether such material actually exists. Another statute prohibits the possession of child pornography, a charge to which Williams pleaded guilty. (4)

The facts of the case are disturbing. On an Internet chat group for pedophiles, Williams offered to swap sexually suggestive pictures of his minor daughter in exchange for similar photos. Williams did not actually have such pictures, but he did have other child pornography.

He entered a conditional guilty plea to the pandering charge but challenged the statute. Although the district court rejected this challenge, on appeal the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed that the Protect Act was overly broad and impermissibly vague. (5)

Williams's overbreadth claim was based on the Court's 5-4 decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, striking down two parts of a similar statute, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA). (6) The CPPA prohibits the possession and distribution of "any visual depiction" that "is,...