United States v. Williams
Facts
Williams entered a public Internet chat room using a sexually explicit screen name and posted that he had sexual pictures involving his toddler for swap. After chatting with an undercover Secret Service agent, Williams stated that he had photographs of men molesting his 4-year-old daughter and later posted a public message with a hyperlink. The hyperlink led to seven images of actual children, approximately ages 5 to 15, engaged in sexually explicit conduct. A search of Williams's home then uncovered hard drives containing at least 22 images of real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and he was charged under § 2252A(a)(3)(B) and § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
Issue
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B), which criminalizes advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing, or soliciting material in a manner reflecting the belief or intended to cause belief that it is child pornography, is facially overbroad under the First Amendment or impermissibly vague under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Rule
Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) is constitutional because it targets offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography, and such proposals for illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection whether or not the transaction is commercial. In construing the statute, "knowingly" applies to every element; the operative verbs have a transactional meaning; "reflects the belief" requires both a subjective belief and an objectively manifested manner; and "intended to cause another to believe" requires subjective intent.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If Nora is charged under a statute worded like the one construed by the Court, her strongest First Amendment defense is likely to fail because: