Court upholds part of child pornography law

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court says even in the no-holds-barred world of the Internet, some limits on speech are needed in the fight against online child pornography.

A federal provision upheld by the court Monday imposes a mandatory five-year prison term on people convicted of promoting child porn, and it doesn't run afoul of First Amendment free-speech rights, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court.

The law applies to "offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography," Scalia said. It does not require that someone actually possess child pornography.

In their 7-2 ruling, the justices brushed aside concerns that the law, aimed at cracking down on the flourishing online exchange of illicit images of children, could sweep in mainstream movies, classic literature or even innocent e-mails that describe pictures of grandchildren.

Joan Bertin, executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship, said Scalia's narrow reading of the law in his majority opinion should result in "considerably less damage than it might otherwise have done." But Bertin said aggressive prosecutors still could try to punish people for innocent activity and put them "through a terrible ordeal."

The ruling upheld part of a 2003 law that also prohibits possession of child pornography. It replaced an earlier law the court had struck down as unconstitutional.

Opponents have said the law could apply to movies like "Traffic" or "Titanic" that depict adolescent sex or the marketing of other material that may not be pornography.

Scalia, in his opinion for the court, said the law takes a reasonable approach to the issue by applying it to situations where the purveyor of the material believes or wants a listener to believe that he has actual child pornography.

Likewise, he said, the law does not cover "the sorts of sex scenes found in R-rated movies."

Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented. Souter said promotion of images that are not real children engaging in pornography still could be the basis for prosecution under the law. Possession of those images, on the other hand, may not be prosecuted, he said.

The case came to the Supreme Court after the 11th U.S. Circuit of Appeals struck down the provision in the 2003 law. The Atlanta-based court said it makes a crime out of merely talking about illegal images or possessing innocent material that someone else might believe was pornographic.

In the appeals court's view, the law could apply to an e-mail sent by a grandparent and entitled "Good pics of kids in bed," showing grandchildren dressed in pajamas.

But Scalia said the appeals court interpretation was unreasonable. "The prosecutions would be thrown out at the threshold," he said.