Date: 2002-04-17
Speaker: JEFF MILLER (republican)
Chamber: H
State: 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 Congresss attempt at a legislative crackdown against computerage child pornography. calling it a threat to free speech. Justice Kennedys 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 countrys children and society as a whole. Child pornography is a highly organized. multimillion 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 hightech kiddie porn by passing the Child Pornography Prevention Act. The law broadened the scope of the definition of child pornography to include computergenerated 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 childs privacy and reputational interests. Images that are created showing a childs face on a body engaging in sexually explicit conduct can haunt the minor for years. As articulated by the courts 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 computergenerated pictures that may be easily mistaken for actual photographs of real children. Yesterday. the court turned its back on its longstanding recognition of the governments compelling interest in protecting American children. That interest is promoted by Congresss 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 Courts decision. Congress is not required to. nor will it wait. on harm to our children before legislating against it. I echo Attorney General John Ashcrofts disappointment in the ruling and that child pornographers and pedophiles can find little refuge in the courts 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.