UNITED STATES v.

WILLIAMS (2007)
FACTS:

On April 26, 2004, an undercover government agent entered an Internet chat room dedicated to child
pornography. After Michael Williams sent a public message to the chat room saying "Dad of toddler has 'good' pics of
her an [sic] me for swap of your toddler pics," the agent initiated a private Internet conversation with
Williams. Williams and the agent first exchanged non-sexual photos of young girls. The agent's photographs were of a
college-aged female made to look like a ten-year-old girl through computer technology. Williams requested explicit
photographs of the girl from the agent, and when the agent did not provide any, he accused the agent of being a
cop. At that point, Williams returned to the Internet chat room and sent the message "Here room; I can put [a link to
pictures because] I'm for real - she [the agent] can't." Attached to the message was a computer hyperlink which
contained seven pictures of minors, age five to fifteen, engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Government agents
subsequently searched Williams' home and found twenty-two similar images on two computer hard drives.
Williams was charged in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida with possession of child
pornography under 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B) and "pandering" material "in a manner that reflects the belief, or that
is intended to cause another to believe," that the material contains illegal child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C.
2252A(a)(3)(B). Pandering means "the catering to or exploitation of the weaknesses of others, especially to provide
gratification for others' desires." Pandering statutes are most often associated with prostitution and punish those who
promote prostitution rather than the prostitutes themselves. While the language of 2252A(a)(3)(B) does not
include the term "pandering," Congress has referred to it and other obscenity statutes as "pandering provisions."
Williams requested that the court dismiss the pandering charge, claiming that 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(3)(B) was
unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. While the trial court was considering his claim, Williams pled guilty to both
counts but reserved the right to appeal his conviction on the ground that 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(3)(B) was
unconstitutional.Williams received a prison sentence of sixty months for the pandering charge and sixty months for
the possession charge, to be served simultaneously for a total of sixty months in prison.
Williams appealed his sentence to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, again arguing that 18 U.S.C.
2252A(a)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The Eleventh Circuit agreed and declared the statute
invalid. The United States petitioned for a writ of certiorari on November 17, 2006, and on March 26, 2007, the
Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

ISSUE:
Is the PROTECT Act's criminalization of "pandering" child pornography unconstitutional because it impermissibly
restricts speech protected under the First Amendment?

RULING:
No. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a seven-Justice majority, held that the statute was not overly broad as written.
Justice Scalia noted specifically that offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First
Amendment protection, and he characterized the speech of an individual claiming to be in possession of child
pornography in this category of unprotected speech. He also stated that the law did not violate Due Process because
its requirements were clear and could be understood by courts, juries and potential violators. Justice David Souter
filed the only dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined.