A federal appeals court in San Francisco struck down a major section of the federal law against child pornography Friday, ruling that the government cannot prohibit computer-generated sexual images that only appear to be pictures of children.
Federal law enforcement officials quickly expressed fear that the ruling could significantly hamper their efforts to combat child pornography. And within hours of the court's decision, federal prosecutors announced that because of the ruling, they would release Patrick J. Naughton, a former Internet executive with Walt Disney Co.'s Go.com site who was convicted on Thursday of possessing child pornography.
Although Naughton was accused of possessing pictures of actual children, the U.S. attorney's office decided to release him on $100,000 bail until the impact of the court's ruling can be sorted out. He is expected to be released Monday.
The 2-1 decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over federal courts in California and eight other Western states, upheld much of the 1996 Child Pornography Protection Act but ruled that applying it to "virtual pornography" would violate the Constitution.
"The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting a statute that makes criminal the generation of images of fictitious children engaged in imaginary but explicit sexual conduct," Judge Donald W. Molloy wrote in the court's opinion.
Two other federal appeals courts--in Atlanta and New York--have upheld the anti-pornography law, making it likely that the current ruling will eventually be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Molloy and Judge Sidney Thomas, who joined him in the majority, brushed aside arguments that even virtual pornographic images could harm children by encouraging pedophiles.
While agreeing that child pornography is repugnant, the two judges declared that the government has "no compelling interest in regulating sexually explicit materials that do not contain visual images of actual children."
That position prompted a stinging dissent from Judge Warren Ferguson, a veteran liberal member of the appeals court.
"Congress has provided compelling evidence that virtual child pornography causes real harm to real children," Ferguson wrote. "As a result, virtual child pornography should join the ranks of real child pornography as a class of speech outside the protection of the 1st Amendment."
