[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4776-4777]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              SUPREME COURT RULING THREATENS OUR CHILDREN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, 20 years ago, the Supreme 
Court recognized the compelling State and national interest in 
protecting American children, declaring that child pornography is 
barred from first amendment protection. Since that time, Congress has 
worked consistently to protect against the exploitation of our 
children, a charge that has become increasingly difficult in the 
computer age.
  Yesterday, the court struck down Congress's attempt at a legislative 
crackdown against computer-age child pornography, calling it a threat 
to free speech. Justice Kennedy's broad language sends a disturbing 
message. The high court in our land apparently places a higher premium 
on the expression of pedophiles than on ensuring the psychological, 
emotional, and mental health of our country's children and society as a 
whole.
  Child pornography is a highly organized, multi-million dollar 
industry in this country, involving the exploitation of thousands of 
children and youth in the production and distribution of pornographic 
materials. In 1996, Congress addressed the mushroom effect of high-tech 
kiddie porn by passing the Child Pornography Prevention Act. The law 
broadened the scope of the definition of child pornography to include 
computer-generated issues. Computers are increasingly being used to 
alter innocent pictures of children to create visuals of those children 
engaging in sexual conduct. This type of child pornography invades the 
child's privacy and reputational interests. Images that are created 
showing a child's face on a body engaging in sexually explicit conduct 
can haunt the minor for years.
  As articulated by the court's dissenters, The Child Pornography 
Prevention Act prohibition of virtual child pornography was tailored 
narrowly enough to pass constitutional muster. It is clear that the Act 
merely extends existing prohibitions on child pornography to a class of 
computer-generated pictures that may be easily mistaken

[[Page 4777]]

for actual photographs of real children. Yesterday, the court turned 
its back on its long-standing recognition of the government's 
compelling interest in protecting American children. That interest is 
promoted by Congress's efforts to ban virtual child pornography. Such 
images whet the appetites of child molesters who may use the images to 
seduce young children.
  Anger to children who are seduced and molested with the aid of child 
sex pictures is just as great when the child pornographer or child 
molester uses visuals of child sexual activity produced wholly or in 
part by electronic or computer means, as when molesters use images of 
actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
  Despite the Supreme Court's decision, Congress is not required to, 
nor will it wait, on harm to our children before legislating against 
it. I echo Attorney General John Ashcroft's disappointment in the 
ruling and that child pornographers and pedophiles can find little 
refuge in the court's decision. Ensuring enforceability of our American 
child pornography laws is indeed a compelling one, and the Child 
Pornography Prevention Act is an important tool in fighting child 
sexual abuse.
  We will continue to fight to ban expression which is used by sex 
abusers to act in deviance with children and which desensitizes the 
offenders themselves to the pathology of sexual abuse and exploitation 
of children. The First Amendment does not protect the panderer.

                          ____________________