Is the supreme court case this year of U.S. v. Michael Wiliams unconstitutional? Why?

Question

The case is essentially deciding whether or not falsifying the promotion of child pornography is criminal, and if it's against freedom of speech by way of the PROTECT act. So if I say I have kiddie porn but I really don't, is incriminating me for just saying I have it (which is legal under the PROTECT act) against my freedom of speech? What do you all think?

Sorry I don't mean for the court case to be unconstitional, it's the PROTECT act that it's going against. In the PROTECT act. It's basically saying that I can say "click here for child porn" and it goes to a website that is NOT child porn and causes no harm to anyone. All it does is lead someone to believe that child porn does exist - under the PROTECT act this is punishable. My essay I'm working on questions whether or not this limit on freedom of speech is unconstitutional since it really causes no one harm.

Answer 1

You do know that there are limits to the freedom of speech right? The Supreme Court ruled long ago that freedom of speech ends when it harms another person. Thus hate crime speech, yelling fire in a crowded elevator, threatening harm to another person, and corrupting minors is illegal.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying in your description.

1. Are you saying that if you lie and say you have child porn, but don't, that you will be arrested? Or are you saying the opposite?

2. Why would you tell someone, or advertise, that you have kiddie porn if you don't? To me there is a "where there's smoke there's fire" feeling to this.

Answer 2

Saying that there is pornography when in fact there is none is perjury when made in court and it is punishable under the law.

Answer 3

I don't think you understand the case. First of all, a case can't be unconstitutional, only a law can.