Courts Rule Child Porn NOT Protected Free Speech
 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/19/...orn/index.html

By Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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."


----

Hmmm... Sounds like the courts got it mostly right... but I wouldn't want to be running one of those TGPs packed with underage looking girls!

Re: Courts Rule Child Porn NOT Protected Free Speech
 

It boggles the mind to think that anyone would actually try to claim that the first amendment protected child porn in the first place.

Re: Courts Rule Child Porn NOT Protected Free Speech
 

The gist of the decision is not that child pornography is illegal, that was true before, it established that offering material claimed to be child pornography is also illegal.

Re: Courts Rule Child Porn NOT Protected Free Speech
 

at least the courts in your country are aware of the need to implement laws. Here in our country, politicians and other people are more interested in corruption.

sigh..