Op-Ed
Legislative Struggles Illustrate Health of System
Email: 
Share: 
Southern Style
Southern Style
Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court began evaluating the case U.S. v. Williams. While Williams is just one of many cases the Justices will hear during their session, it is arguably the one with the fiercest and most disturbing tenets. The case is a classic battle of government regulation versus the First Amendment. This time, however, the plaintiff is wielding charges of child pornography pandering against the Constitution.
The Williams saga began in 2004 when undercover Secret Service agent Timothy Devine caught defendant Michael Williams attempting to distribute and trade child pornographic pictures and live video feeds in an online chat room. According to Devine, Williams advertised himself as a “Dad of a toddler” who had hardcore photographs and video. After swapping explicit photographs with the agent, the Secret Service obtained a warrant for Williams’ house, arrested him and seized his computers — only to find more lascivious material stored on his hard drives.
Since the arrest, Williams’ case has ascended courtroom hierarchy to finally reach its summit in the U.S. Supreme Court. To this point, however, Williams has experienced inconsistent rulings. Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against the lower court’s judgment and favored Williams, claiming the PROTECT Act, which Congress had passed to regulate pandering and promoting of child pornography on the Internet, was “overboard and vague.” The Court claimed that the Act violates First Amendment rights and is therefore unconstitutional. It is now up to the Supreme Court to have the final say and determine the fate of both PROTECT and Williams himself.
Congress and the Supreme Court have been struggling in recent decades to create and uphold legislation that tiptoes the fine middle ground concerning free speech and the advertisement and distribution of child pornography. From the initially adopted Miller standard through the New York v. Ferber ruling and most recent Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition decision, the Supreme Court has whittled legislation to reflect the Constitution, yet also keep up to date with technological advances. For example, in response to newly developed Internet capabilities that pornographic promoters were using, Congress passed the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act in 1988. Through these legislative revisions, the government has maintained stringent standards that are simultaneously technologically savvy.
Yet despite continuous legislative advancements Congress once again finds its product on the Supreme Court’s operating table for meticulous dissection. The Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 could not, in totality, stand the test of time, and as a result, was amended to include the PROTECT Act in 2003.
While this constant battle between Congress and the Courts illustrates the justice of our three-branched government and the peerlessly effective checks and balances system, it nonetheless reveals yet another inadequacy in the law.
The bottom line is that a bona fide law capable of regulating the pandering of child pornography currently does not exist (as evidenced by Williams ascending to the Supreme Court and reaching incompatible decisions along the way). This is very problematic — and dangerous — for all citizens, especially children that are being exploited by this trade.
But who is to blame — if anyone? On one hand, there is Congress. Why has it not constructed a law, after endless research, debate and legislative writings, that appropriately punishes these pornographers? First off, the advances of technology and the Internet provide new areas that are not adequately covered by old laws. New research and subsequent laws must therefore be in place to meet these demands and satisfy the void. In addition, these new laws raise questions in auxiliary avenues — such as their implications and effects on free speech, interstate commerce, etc. In the case of child pornography distribution and pandering, Congress has to be cognizant of all these “pedantic” Constitutional factors while simultaneously making sure the goal of the legislation is adequately and thoroughly achieved.
On the other hand is the Supreme Court. Many ask, on a valence issue such as child pornography, where the anti-child porn distribution view is nationally unanimous, maybe a few liberties should be sacrificed, as, say, what occurred during the Patriot Act. To acquiesce to this practice, however, would be sacrificing the bigger picture and concepts of justice and liberty that support the very foundations of our law. An analogous situation occurred in 1995 when the Supreme Court was forced to overrule a Congressional act that forbade guns in the proximity of school property (U.S. v. Lopez). Gun control was then the hot button issue due to multiple high school shooting tragedies. The Supreme Court, however, stayed the course and overruled the act. While this ruling was unpopular, it was nevertheless the correct decision and has since led to proper Constitutional law being formed.
The fact that Congress and the courts continue to grapple is not a sign of weakness or inefficiency, but rather a brilliant display of progress in a successful system. There has been, and will continue to be, much dismay and public debate over the effectiveness of our laws and the courts perceived overzealous attempts to strike reasonable statutes. As we await the decision in the Williams case, we know it is of utmost importance that child pornography be strictly regulated, and ideally totally abolished; however, as the Eleventh Circuit noted, Congress must not “burn the house to roast the pig.” To do so would betray the very principles that those who advocate the PROTECT Act strive to embody.
Carl Menzel is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at
cmenzel@cornellsun.com. Southern Style appears alternate Fridays.