Abstract
In May 2008, the Supreme Court addressed whether the government can regulate the ownership and distribution of virtual child pornography. U.S. v. Williams marked the first time the Court directly addressed the concept of pandering virtual child pornography. This article examines the Court's decision in U.S. v. Williams and the relative importance of its holding. In U.S. v. Williams, the Supreme Court upheld an act of Congress targeting the business people behind the child pornography market. Restricting the sale of both real and virtual child pornography is essential to combat the various problems surrounding its existence, which include policing its creation and distribution on the Internet as well as the connection between child pornography and subsequent sexual offenses against children.
Notes
1. It is noteworthy that Justice Scalia dissented in Free Speech Coalition but authored the majority opinion in Williams.
2. This directly rejects the Eleventh Circuit's contention that only commercial speech, not private speech, involving illegal transactions could be prohibited under the First Amendment.
3. The dissenting justices noted that the government could not identify a single case in which a defendant was acquitted based on a “computer generated images” defense.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).
Child Pornography Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2256 (1996).
Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982).
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990).
Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (2003).
United States v. Williams, 2004 WL 5388528 (2004).
United States v. Williams, 444 F.3d 1286 (2006).
United States v. Williams, 128 S.Ct. 1830 (2008).