Source: News Wire
The following is the opinion of District Judge Molloy:
The question presented in this case is whether Congress may constitutionally proscribe as child pornography computer images that do not involve the use of real children in their production or dissemination. We hold that the First Amend- ment prohibits Congress from enacting a statute that makes criminal the generation of images of fictitious children engaged in imaginary but explicit sexual conduct.
In this case, the district court found that the Child Pornog- raphy Prevention Act of 1996 (“CPPA” or the “Act”) was content-neutral, was not unconstitutionally vague or over- broad, and did not constitute an improper prior restraint of speech. The district court also found that the Child Pornogra- phy Prevention Act’s affirmative defense did not impermiss- ibly shift the burden of proof to a defendant by virtue of an unconstitutional presumption.
To read the transcript in it’s entirety go to FREE SPEECH V RENO
