Supremes Uphold Child Porn Law: ACLU, NAMBLA Hardest Hit

Just imagine how the New York Times would report a Supreme Court decision that struck down a ruling in favor of the Bush administration. It would, of course, be hailed as a crushing defeat, or a harsh blow to the forces of evil.

Yet here you have an item noting today's 7-2 ruling upholding a federal law against child pornography, and the two biggest proponents of it aren't even mentioned.

How convenient.

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a 2003 federal law aimed at child pornography, concluding in a 7-to-2 opinion that a federal appeals court was wrong to find the law unconstitutionally vague.

The law in question arose from a sensible, constitutionally acceptable approach by Congress to correct faults that the high court found in an earlier child-pornography law, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court.

“Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens,” Justice Scalia wrote. “Both the state and federal governments have sought to suppress it for many years, only to find it proliferating through the new medium of the Internet.”

The ruling scathingly rejected contentions that the 2003 legislation was so broadly written that it could make it a crime to share or even describe depictions of children in explicit sexual situations, even if the depictions are inaccurate, the children do not really exist and the intention is innocent.

Invalidation of a law because it is thought to be too broad is “strong medicine” that is not to be “casually employed,” Justice Scalia wrote, citing earlier Supreme Court rulings and declaring that the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had employed the strong medicine too casually in the case at hand.

Monday’s decision in United States v. Williams reinstated the conviction of Michael Williams of Florida, who was caught in a federal undercover operation in April 2004 and found guilty later of “pandering” child pornography, a charge defined in part as promoting or distributing real or “purported” material in a way that reflects the belief — or is intended to persuade another — that the material is indeed child pornography.

Oh, and if you thought elections don't mean anything, check out how the justices voted.

Joining the opinion were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, with Justice Souter writing that promoting images that are not real children engaging in pornography still could be prosecuted under the law at issue.

Meanwhile, the ACLU is looking for new (ahem) leadership.