Discuss U.S. v. Williams' PROTECT ACT section as it relates to child pornography and the internet. Does this provide enough protection? Why or why not?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

In the 2008 case of United States v. Williams, the Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held the PROTECT Act constitutional. The PROTECT Act makes it a crime for a person to distribute information on the Internet in a manner that "reflects a belief" or is "intended to make another believe" the person was distributing child pornography. Charges of distributing child pornography over the Internet can be difficult to prove because the U.S. Supreme Court had held that persons distributing pictures alleged to contain images of actual children in sexual poses, but who are in reality young-looking actors or computer-created animations, cannot be prosecuted as child pornographers. As a result, it is difficult for a prosecution to prove that images depicted in an Internet posting are actual children. The PROTECT Act alleviates this problem by making it a violation to post images in such a manner that suggests the person posting the image either believes it to be of an actual child or posts it in a manner designed to make others believe the images are real children. The Supreme Court upheld the statute, stating it narrowly prohibited conduct that relates to the depiction of sexual poses involving actual children, and did not operate to prohibit conduct that does not involve actual children. The student responses should be grounded in their knowledge of the aforementioned act.