Justices: Child porn is not protected speech

[johnny@.]

Justices: Child porn is not protected speech

By Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer
updated 12:35 p.m. EDT, Mon May 19, 2008

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.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, calling Internet child
porn a "threat."

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."

The "Protect" Act was Congress' latest attempt to control graphic images
on the Internet. Previous efforts were struck down by the high court on
First Amendment issues.

Cut!

Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

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

Now AT&T can turn these people in to the police. Personally, I think
they should just be shot in the head, with no trial.

[Rostyslaw J. Lewyckyj]

johnny@. wrote:
> Justices: Child porn is not protected speech
>
> By Bill Mears
> CNN Supreme Court Producer
> updated 12:35 p.m. EDT, Mon May 19, 2008
>
> 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.
>
> Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, calling Internet child
> porn a "threat."
>
> 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.
>

Obscenity is in the eye of the censor.
So just to be on the safe side, NO QUOTES FROM ROMEO & JULIETTE
nor similar medieval love stories.