The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a law aimed at preventing child pornography, ruling a provision dealing with "pandering" illicit material does not violate constitutional protections on free speech.
The 7-2 ruling rejected suggestions the law is overly broad, and will stifle a range of expressive or artistic material that is not obscene.
The case involves Michael Williams, convicted in a Florida federal court for promoting child pornography on the Internet.
A three-judge panel concluded the provision was "substantially overbroad and vague," and that "non-commercial, non-inciteful promotion of illegal child pornography, even if repugnant, is protected free speech." In other words, the judges said merely talking about child porn is not necessarily criminal.
Souter wrote that a double standard exists since those pandering images not involving minors engaging in simulated sex could now be prosecuted, but possession of those images would not be subject to prosecution.
clipped from: www.cnn.com