U.S. v.Williams

What happened?

Williams was in possession of real Child Pornography. Violated the Protect Act, which made it illegal to distribute Child Pornography

Who won?

United States

Why did they win?

Williams tried saying the Protect Act is too broad. Didn’t work.

Government says his intention came into play as well, as if he said he was selling Virtual Porn, he would be good. But he was explicit about himself selling real child pornography.

How did the witnesses play a role (how did they go back and forth in their argument)? Important terms:

Pornography - printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

Child pornography - Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation. Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (persons less than 18 years old). Images of child pornography are also referred to as child sexual abuse images）.

==========================================================================================================================================================================================

1. This case relates back to the CPPA.
2. INITIALLY, Williams was found guilty of possessing child pornography under

CPPA and pandering child pornography under CPPA.

1. i.             He signed into a chat room, and was caught by the Secret Service when he posted a link that contained several images of minors engaging in sexually explicit activities.
2. ii.             Secret Service gets a search warrant and then raided his home, finding another 22 images of minors engaging in sexually explicit activities.
3. He was found guilty, one count of pandering child pornography, and one count of possessing child pornography.
   1. i.             District court rejected the challenge.
   2. ii.             United states Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed the pandering conviction stating it was overbroad and unconstitutional.
   3. iii.             Case went to the Supreme Court of the United States where Judge Scalia presented the opinion of the court.
      1. The general idea is that this kind of material is excluded from protections of the First Amendment. The decision made by the 11th Circuit Court‘s view on pandering, meant that someone who simply lies about something being child pornography, could be punished, making it unconstitutional.
      2. Supreme Court states that pandering of child pornography refers to specific items. Such as recommending child pornography to another, with the intent to transfer.
      3. "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children. It is simply not true that this means ‘a protected category of expression [will] inevitably be suppressed,”

d.          Challenged the constitutionality of the pandering conviction

iv.            Supreme Court reverses the 11th Circuit‘s decision.

========================================================================================================================

1. Michael Williams in chat room struck up a conversation with a secret service agent, soon after which he told the agent he had pics of men molesting his 4 year old daughter. He then posted a link which led to child porn in the public chat room. Williams was then charged with one count of pandering child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography. He pleaded guilty to both charges, but challenged their constitutionality.
2. The court reversed the previous decision, excluding the requesting or pandering of child pornography as protected under the first amendment.

U.S. v.Williams

原文：https://www.cnblogs.com/JasperZhao/p/13149554.html