- Baptist Press - https://www.baptistpress.com -

Supreme Court asked to uphold ban on computerized child porn

[1]

WASHINGTON (BP)–The federal government asked the U.S. Supreme Court Oct. 30 to uphold a law that prohibits computerized child pornography.

In oral arguments, the Department of Justice called for the justices to reverse a lower court ruling that struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act, a 1996 federal law that expanded the ban on child porn to include computer-generated images of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

The high court heard arguments for the second day at the District of Columbia federal courthouse after anthrax spores were discovered at the Supreme Court building. The justices were to hear oral arguments at the federal courthouse Oct. 31 as well.

Supporters of the Child Pornography Prevention Act contend the ban on “virtual” child porn is necessary to stymie the demand for such sexual images and to aid prosecutors in child pornography cases in which defendants argue the images are not of real children. Critics of the measure call it overbroad and say it could result in restrictions on more legitimate works.

After hearing the oral arguments in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, a proponent of the law said she believes the high court will reverse the lower court.

Jan LaRue, senior director of legal studies for Family Research Council, said she thinks the justices will do so “because they realize that without this law that reasonable doubt will be raised in every child pornography prosecution from here on out, and I don’t think the court can live with that.”

[2]

LaRue told Baptist Press she believes the high court will “construe [the law] to apply only to the material that is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing, and the compelling governmental reason to do that is to prevent real children from sexual abuse at the hands of pedophiles who use this material.”

A sizable portion of the hour-long session was used in discussing whether a person could be prosecuted for buying videos such as “Traffic,” “Titanic” and “Lolita,” movies that include sexual scenes involving teenagers.

A federal judge upheld the law, but the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in California, reversed the decision, ruling the language describing computerized images was “unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”

Appeals courts in the First, Fourth, Fifth and 11th districts upheld the law, however.

FRC and the American Center for Law and Justice were among the organizations that filed friend-of-the-court briefs defending the law.

Jay Sekulow, ACLJ’s chief counsel, said in a written release, “The First Amendment was never intended to be used as a shield to protect pornographers. The fact is that pornography is pornography — there should be no legal distinction between porn images that are either real or virtual.”

A decision in the case is expected before the court adjourns next summer.
–30–