Child Pornography



Child Pornography

Introduction

The child pornography industry has become increasingly hard to combat as a result of advanced technology that can replicate the images of children with such quality that on their face it is almost impossible to determine if it is a picture of an actual child or if it is a computer generated image. While law makers attempt to adapt to these developments, others have challenged its Constitutionality under the First Amendment.2 Congress' most recent attempt to combat the evolution of child pornography was the Protect Act of 2003 [hereinafter Act). In the most recent case evaluating the Act's constitutionality, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [hereinafter court) held in United States v. Williams4 that the Act was unconstitutional. The government appealed to the United States Supreme Court which granted the case certiorari on March 26, 2007. This article will examine the Eleventh Circuit's decision, as well as the questions now before the Supreme Court.



Discussion

Michael Williams was convicted in federal district court of "pandering" (promoting) child pornography. The 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 Congress's previous effort as overbroad 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.

Case & Procedural History

The general issue before the court was whether or not the Act was overbroad and vague, and thus unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The defendant, Michael Williams, appealed his conviction by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for promotion of child pornography under the Act.5 He was convicted as a result of sending hyperlinks in a child pornography chat room that contained among other things, seven images of actual minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.These pictures where sent while Williams was having a conversation with an undercover ...