You may remember him as the conservative radio show host and former car salesman who led Operation Rescue anti-abortion protests in the 1980s. Most people find the very notion of child pornography to be so disgusting that state and federal lawmakers run into little opposition when they pass sweeping anti-porn laws for the Internet. Questioned about such niceties as the First Amendment, they are content to leave it to the courts to sort out the details. But the details are what protect legitimate journalism and intellectual inquiry in this country. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said that he could not define obscenity, but he knew it when he saw it.
Child pornography is disgusting.
It is also child abuse. As such, we are on much easier constitutional ground when we prosecute the producers of it than when we try to go after those who merely possess the questionable material. Under the new federal Internet laws, only law enforcement authorities can legally possess such materials. Prosecutors say Matthews' journalistic motives are irrelevant, that it is only his acts, not his intent, that count. As a result, this appears to be the first known case of a reporter being prosecuted for obtaining or sending outlawed materials over the Internet.