High court draws right distinction

OPINION
Published: May 26, 2008

On a topic that long has inspired judicial ambiguity, the Supreme Court has provided rare commodities in modern jurisprudence: clarity and sensibility. The gang of nine upheld 7-2 a federal law used by authorities to rein in child pornography.

This, naturally, kindled outrage among First Amendment advocates, a group which includes us under most circumstances. The ruling, they warned, will — cue the cliché — have a chilling effect on art specifically and American life generally, subjecting mainstream movies, classic literature and even photos of babies and bath tubs to a place at the center of a criminal case against innocents.

The law prohibits the offering or solicitation of sexually explicit images of children. The court’s decision to uphold the 2003 measure might prove to be a singular accomplishment in the life of Michael
Williams, a Florida man who claimed in an Internet chat room to possess “good pics” of men molesting his 4-year-old daughter. His twisted boast was false. But agents who raided him home discovered
something real and disturbing — 22 sexually explicit images of children on his computer. Williams won a federal court appeal targeting the law as unconstitutional before losing in the Supreme Court.

“Offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography are categorically excluded from the First Amendment,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. First Amendment protection, Scalia added,
does not extend to “sexually explicit material that violates fundamental notions of decency.”

Scalia swatted away speculation that the Protect Act would result in an assault on art or other legitimate forms of expression, labeling such concerns “fanciful hypotheticals.” People engaged in the
production of actual art or innocently exchanging images of naked babies will neither be subject to prosecution nor at risk in the courts, Scalia said.

Over the course of the last decade, a thriving online industry has coalesced around the sexual exploitation of children. For police, many of whom are particularly and justifiably zealous in stamping out the
abuse, the federal law known as the Protect Act, has proved a boon, providing the needed prosecutorial lever to open the doors to darkened rooms where adults pedal young prey.

We believe firmly in the wisdom and authority of the First Amendment. It is the lifeblood not only of our livelihood as an information provider but America’s status as a free republic. However, child
pornography in relation to the First Amendment represents something significantly less than a distortion.

The Protect Act is a valid, thoughtfully crafted response to an especially heinous and increasingly prominent crime. The high court acted in the best interest of a group whose voice is muted amid the
clamor over speech rights. It was the right thing to do.

— The (Waynesboro) News Virginian