Supreme Court upholds anti-child porn measure

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld a strict federal anti-pornography law Monday, ruling that criminalizing the “promotion” of child pornography does not stifle free speech.

The court, in a 7-2 decision, rejected suggestions that Congress, in seeking to stamp out child abuse, had gone too far by making it a federal crime to advertise or promote child pornography.

Instead, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Congress had not run afoul of the First Amendment.

“The act before us does not prohibit advocacy of child pornography, but only offers to provide or requests to obtain it,” Scalia wrote. “There is no doubt that this prohibition falls well within constitutional bounds. ... We hold that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment.”

Critics had suggested the law could chill free expression, including racy movies or even their critiques.

But Scalia rejected those arguments, writing that the court found it “implausible that a reputable distributor of Hollywood movies ... believes that one of these films contains actual children engaging in actual or simulated sex on camera.”

The case began with the 2004 arrest of Michael Williams, a former Miami police officer who was charged with both “promoting” and possessing child pornography. Williams was living in Key Largo, Fla., at the time of his arrest, part of an undercover operation aimed at fighting child exploitation on the Internet.

A special agent with the U.S. Secret Service entered an Internet chat room and spotted a suggestive message from Williams, according to court documents.

Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the new law still violates the Constitution. Souter argued that pandering of images that didn’t involve actual children still could be prosecuted under the law.

“Without some demonstration that juries have been rendering exploitation of children unpunishable, there is no excuse for cutting back on the First Amendment,” he wrote.