Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, October 29, 2007

In a rare display of editorial wisdom, today's Washington Post features an op-ed on a child pornography case scheduled for debate Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In it, the Post appeals to the government's "profound interest in protecting children" against online predators who peddle even the suggestion of illicit photos throughout cyber-space. During tomorrow's oral arguments, the court will seek to decide whether Michael Williams, a father who offered obscene pictures of his toddler to an undercover cop in an Internet chat room, can be charged with "possession of child pornography" and "pandering" even if the photos he promised never existed.

Prosecutors initially charged Williams with violating the law's "prohibition against knowingly advertising or promoting any material... that is intended to cause another to believe that the material... is child pornography."

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Mr. Williams's claim that he was merely exercising his free speech rights.

As the case makes its high court debut, Williams can expect little sympathy from FRC or the Post editors, who write, "Children ... are exploited and manipulated in every instance by adults intent on satisfying their impulses. The growth of the Internet has given pedophiles unprecedented access to such material. To choke off demand for the product, those who peddle child pornography must be held criminally liable--even if they exaggerate or falsely advertise the material they hawk."

Additional Resources
Checking Child Pornography (Washington Post)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801300.html