Thank you! Promoting child porn is not protected speech.
Why do rational people even have to debate such a thing?
The SCOTUS sent a strong 7-2 message to internet pervs that promoting child porn will not be tolerated - even if the offer or promotions is a lie.
Per usual, Justices Souter and (hot 4 denny) Ginsburg dissented; worried more about the rights of anonymous, predatory, internet sickos than children.
The case, United States v. Williams, No. 06-694, began in 2004 as the prosecution of a Florida man, Michael Williams, who was caught in a federal sting operation offering child pornography in an Internet chat room.
His conviction for possessing the images, and his five-year sentence for that crime, were not at issue in the case. He challenged his conviction under the new law for pandering and won a reversal in the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which found the law both over broad and unconstitutionally vague.
Fortunately, the adults on the court prevailed and reversed the lower court decision.
Justice Scalia dismissed these concerns as “fanciful hypotheticals,” saying that such situations would either not give rise to prosecutions or, if they did, would be protected by the courts. In a concurring opinion, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer said they, too, were satisfied that the court’s narrow construction of the statute had allayed “any constitutional concerns that might arise.”
The court's full opinion can be found here.
