U.S. v. Williams
U.S. v. Williams, Michael
The Supreme Court is slated to weigh in again on congressional efforts to outlaw child pornography, focusing on whether the provisions of the so-called PROTECT Act are too broad to be permissible under the First Amendment.
The case involves Michael Williams, who was convicted in federal district court of "pandering" (promoting) child pornography.
The federal PROTECT Act proscribes the pandering of "any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that the material is illegal child pornography. The Act represents Congress's attempt to outlaw sexually explicit images of children - including both images of real children and computer-generated images of realistic virtual children.
The Supreme Court struck down as overbroad Congress's previous effort to achieve the same goal in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Council, because the law as written could have outlawed artwork that was neither obscene nor child pornography. Williams argued that the PROTECT Act was similarly overbroad, but the district court held that the government can legitimately outlaw the pandering of material as child pornography, even if the material is not in fact child pornography.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court and struck down the PROTECT Act as unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit was unmoved by the government's argument that prosecuting the promotion of virtual child pornography as real is necessary to combat the child porn market.
The Circuit Court held that the Act's prohibition was broad enough to include any "braggart, exaggerator, or outright liar" who claims in a non-commercial context to have child pornography but actually does not. Thus, the Act's pandering provision prohibited protected speech as well as actual child pornography.
Questions presented: Whether section 2252A(a)(3)(B) of Title 18, which prohibits knowingly advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing or soliciting materail in a manner that reflects the belief, or is intended to cause another to believe, that the material is illegal child pornography, is overly broad and impermissibly vague, and thus facially unconstitutional?
On March 26, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review in the case.
Justices uphold child porn law (May 19, 2008)
After denying several past attempts as overly broad, the Supreme Court this term upheld congressional efforts to outlaw child pornography.
The case involves Michael Williams, who was convicted in federal district court of "pandering" (promoting) child pornography.
The federal PROTECT Act proscribes the pandering of "any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that the material is illegal child pornography. The Act represents Congress's attempt to outlaw sexually explicit images of children - including both images of real children and computer-generated images of realistic virtual children.
The Supreme Court struck down as overbroad Congress' previous effort to achieve the same goal in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Council, because the law as written could have outlawed artwork that was neither obscene nor child pornography. Williams argued that the PROTECT Act was similarly overbroad, but the district court held that the government can legitimately outlaw the pandering of material as child pornography, even if the material is not in fact child pornography.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court and struck down the PROTECT Act as unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit was unmoved by the government's argument that prosecuting the promotion of virtual child pornography as real is necessary to combat the child porn market.
The Circuit Court held that the Act's prohibition was broad enough to include any "braggart, exaggerator, or outright liar" who claims in a non-commercial context to have child pornography but actually does not. Thus, the Act's pandering provision prohibited protected speech as well as actual child pornography.
On May 19, the Supreme Court struck down the appeals court decision and upheld the law.
"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 identified. As far as the provision at issue in this case is concerned, that effort was successful," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a 7-2 majority.
Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, filed a dissenting opinion in which he outlined the potential threat to free speech posed by the law.
Eliminating the line between protected and unprotected speech, guaranteeing the suppression of a category of expression previously protected, and reducing recent and carefully considered First Amendment precedents to empty shells are heavy prices, not to be paid without a substantial offset, which is missing from this case," he wrote.