Tough Child Pornography Law Cracking Down On Child Porn Promotion Upheld By Supreme Court

A tough federal pornography law that allows prosecution of child porn beyond the past definitions has been upheld by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court today upheld a strict new federal law that makes it a crime to send messages over the computer that offer or seek child pornography, even when no such pornography exists.

The 7-2 ruling gives prosecutors a powerful weapon to go after those who talk about child pornography online. It also appears to take away a defense for those who say the material they were discussing involves computer images, not depictions of real children engaged in sex.

The high court overturned a decision by a U.S. appeals court in Atlanta that said the new law was too broad and violated free-speech rights.

The AP notes that the law makes it a crime to lead someone to believe you have child porn to show or exchange, which which critics say could create problems if it’s broadly applied to areas that aren’t considered traditional child porn:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that leading someone to believe you have child pornography to show or exchange is a federal crime, brushing aside concerns that the law could apply to mainstream movies that depict adolescent sex, classic literature or even innocent e-mails that describe pictures of grandchildren.

The court, in a 7-2 decision, upheld a law aimed at cracking down on the flourishing online exchange of illicit images of children.

Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, said Justice Antonin Scalia’s narrow reading of the law in his majority opinion should result in “considerably less damage than it might otherwise have done.” But Bertin said aggressive prosecutors still could try to punish people for innocent activity and put them “through a terrible ordeal.”

The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law that also prohibits possession of child pornography. It replaced an earlier law the court had struck down as unconstitutional.

The majority of the court felt that arguments that it could be used beyond its intent were just that — arguments based on suppositions:

The court voted 7 to 2 that the law criminalizing “pandering” of real or purported child pornography over the Internet or through the mail met constitutional standards. The majority dismissed arguments Justice Antonin Scalia called “fanciful hypotheticals” that the law might make documentarians, movie reviewers and even unsuspecting grandparents subject to its pandering standards.

“Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens,” Scalia wrote for the majority, adding that federal and state authorities have been frustrated to find it “proliferating through the new medium of the Internet.”

And there were some dissenters:

Justice David H. Souter dissented, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined him.

“Perhaps I am wrong, but without some demonstration that juries have been rendering exploitation of children unpunishable, there is no excuse for cutting back on the First Amendment and no alternative to finding overbreadth in this act,” Souter wrote.

The bottom line: the law will give prosecutors the tools it needs to in particular go after formal or informal child porn rings. The Internet has been flooded with child pornography and the The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children has urged world leaders to crack down on child porn. Pornography has been around for centuries, but the Internet has been a boon to pedophiles. One study said the Internet has led to an explosion in child pornography but the actual link to child abuse is unclear.

The new law will drive some people underground, but the issue is a big one that has been at the center of some huge stories. The lastest big story involved California talk show host Bernie Ward.

For more news stories on child pornography laws go HERE.