The Free Speech Coalition, a US trade association representing
the pornography industry, had challenged the law which expanded a
long-standing ban on child porn to prohibit any image that “appears
to be” or “conveys the impression” of someone under the age of 18
engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The law targeted computer
technologies that can be used to alter an innocent picture of a
child into a depiction of a child engaged in sex.
The Free Speech Coalition said it supports a ban on child porn,
but argued that the 1996 Act could ban non-obscene sex scenes in
respected films. In a 6-3 split decision, the Supreme Court agreed,
expressing concern that the government might prosecute someone for
simple distribution or possession of a film with literary or
artistic value, such as Academy Award winning movies “Traffic” and
“American Beauty.”
Jan LaRue, senior director of Legal Studies for Family Research
Council, commented:
"The Court's speculation about movies like
these and paintings being prosecuted is abject nonsense. Such films
do not contain the kind of conduct prohibited by the statute, and
even if they did, they aren't pandered as child pornography.
Congress made clear that the law should not be construed to apply
to such material. All of the other circuit courts understood that.
All the Court needed to do is determine the reach of the statute
and exclude the kinds of images to which it could not apply. That's
the Court's job and by failing to do it, they've failed children
and left them vulnerable to sexual predators."
LaRue concluded: “That the Supreme Court of the United States
can entertain the notion that virtual images of children being
sexually violated has 'value' that needs protection is an
abomination.”
Mark Kernes, senior editor of Adult Video News Magazine,
said:
"The most important point is that the Court
has now drawn a very bright line between young looking adults and
actual minors […]. Child pornography is actually child sexual
abuse, and that is not what people in the adult entertainment
industry do or support. Our industry fought the fight, but everyone
in the entertainment industry and the public are the real
winners."
Shortly after the decision, US Attorney General John Ashcroft,
who defended the appeal, said that he is now committed to working
with Congress to prepare new laws against child porn.
The Supreme Court is still considering another case involving a
1998 law - the Child Online Protection Act – which makes it a crime
to knowingly place objectionable material where a child could find
it on the internet. The Court’s decision is expected at any
time.
