Darky
May 30th, 2008, 12:17
pornography? Link to article (http://www.aclj.org/TrialNotebook/Read.aspx?id=621)
The American Center for Law and Justice filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Williams. We filed this brief on behalf of our own organization as well as eighteen Members of the United States Congress. Five of those Members of Congress sponsored an Act, known as the Protect Act, designed to protect children from the increasing problems of internet pornography. Specifically, the legislation at issue prohibited pandering of child pornography online even if no sale of pornography took place. Today, the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision ruled in our favor.
The statute prohibits any person from advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing or soliciting through the mails or computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief that the material or purported material is an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexual conduct. Michael Williams challenged his conviction alleging that prosecution for pandering material that one does not possess would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. The ACLU joined an amicus brief in support of Mr. Williams.
In our brief, we asserted that the Act was constitutional. It was designed to give U.S. Attorneys prosecutorial tools to use against those who are pandering child pornography online. We asserted in our brief: “Congress’s purpose for the pandering provision was to combat trafficking in child pornography by punishing those who pander it.”
In his opinion, Justice Scalia held that the Court had “long held that obscene speech – sexually explicit material that violates fundamental notions of decency – is not protected by the First Amendment.” The Court further noted that the government “may criminalize the possession of child pornography, even though it may not criminalize the mere possession of obscene material involving adults.”
The ACLU challenged the constitutionality of the statute, asserting that the statute does not require the actual existence of child pornography and, therefore, would violate the First Amendment Free Speech provision. The Court duly noted that “rather than targeting the underlying material, this statute bans the collateral speech that introduces such material into the child pornography distribution network. Thus, an Internet user who solicits child pornography from an undercover agent violates the statute even if the officer possesses no child pornography. Likewise, a person who advertises virtual child pornography as depicting actual children also falls within the reach of the statute.”
Justice Scalia noted that “offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection...In sum, we hold that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment.”
The positions that we advocated in our amicus brief were adopted by the Supreme Court. It’s important to note that the Court now has a firm understanding of the problems associated with the increasing issue of child pornography online. The concluding paragraph of the opinion holds that:
“Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our
citizens. Both the State and Federal governments have sought to
suppress it for many years, only to find it proliferating through the
new medium of the Internet. 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 Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer and Alito joined.
Justice Souter filed the dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joined.
Seriously, I'm all for protecting people's rights and all, but does the ACLU just jump on every case where someone is told no? Guy was soliciting child porn from an undercover agent I guess, got busted, went to court and the ACLU fought to defend his right to solicit child porn as Protected speech?
The American Center for Law and Justice filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Williams. We filed this brief on behalf of our own organization as well as eighteen Members of the United States Congress. Five of those Members of Congress sponsored an Act, known as the Protect Act, designed to protect children from the increasing problems of internet pornography. Specifically, the legislation at issue prohibited pandering of child pornography online even if no sale of pornography took place. Today, the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision ruled in our favor.
The statute prohibits any person from advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing or soliciting through the mails or computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief that the material or purported material is an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexual conduct. Michael Williams challenged his conviction alleging that prosecution for pandering material that one does not possess would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. The ACLU joined an amicus brief in support of Mr. Williams.
In our brief, we asserted that the Act was constitutional. It was designed to give U.S. Attorneys prosecutorial tools to use against those who are pandering child pornography online. We asserted in our brief: “Congress’s purpose for the pandering provision was to combat trafficking in child pornography by punishing those who pander it.”
In his opinion, Justice Scalia held that the Court had “long held that obscene speech – sexually explicit material that violates fundamental notions of decency – is not protected by the First Amendment.” The Court further noted that the government “may criminalize the possession of child pornography, even though it may not criminalize the mere possession of obscene material involving adults.”
The ACLU challenged the constitutionality of the statute, asserting that the statute does not require the actual existence of child pornography and, therefore, would violate the First Amendment Free Speech provision. The Court duly noted that “rather than targeting the underlying material, this statute bans the collateral speech that introduces such material into the child pornography distribution network. Thus, an Internet user who solicits child pornography from an undercover agent violates the statute even if the officer possesses no child pornography. Likewise, a person who advertises virtual child pornography as depicting actual children also falls within the reach of the statute.”
Justice Scalia noted that “offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection...In sum, we hold that offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment.”
The positions that we advocated in our amicus brief were adopted by the Supreme Court. It’s important to note that the Court now has a firm understanding of the problems associated with the increasing issue of child pornography online. The concluding paragraph of the opinion holds that:
“Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our
citizens. Both the State and Federal governments have sought to
suppress it for many years, only to find it proliferating through the
new medium of the Internet. 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 Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer and Alito joined.
Justice Souter filed the dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joined.
Seriously, I'm all for protecting people's rights and all, but does the ACLU just jump on every case where someone is told no? Guy was soliciting child porn from an undercover agent I guess, got busted, went to court and the ACLU fought to defend his right to solicit child porn as Protected speech?