Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Florida Porn Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of a child pornography law called the PROTECT Act of 2003. The issue the court will consider arose in the case of a man whose conviction in Florida for promoting child porn was reversed by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. That court found that the pandering provision of the Act was unconstitutional because it was overbroad and impermissibly vague. The court held that the law makes criminal the speech of someone who touts material as child pornography when in fact it is clean or nonexistent.

The appeals court found that the pandering provision of the Act could apply to an e-mail entitled "Good pics of kids in bed" sent by a grandparent, with innocent pictures attached of grandchildren in pajamas. One sender might be a proud grandparent while another might be a convicted child molester who hopes to trade for more graphic photos with like-minded recipients, the appeals court said.

In its petition asking the court to take the case, the Bush administration's Solicitor General said the appeals court had read the law's language more broadly than was warranted.

One thing we know. There are at least four votes in favor of one side on the Supreme Court. Anyone care to guess?