United States v. Williams (2008)
http://dbpedia.org/resource/United_States_v._Williams_(2008) an entity of type: Thing
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did in fact not possess child pornography with which to trade.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
United States v. Williams (2008)
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
United States, Petitioner v. Michael Williams
xsd:integer
17524914
xsd:integer
1123626111
rdf:langString
Souter
xsd:integer
6
rdf:langString
Ginsburg
rdf:langString
Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito
rdf:langString
U.S. Const. amend. I;
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
285
xsd:integer
553
xsd:gMonthDay
--10-30
xsd:integer
2007
rdf:langString
United States v. Williams,
xsd:gMonthDay
--05-19
xsd:integer
2008
rdf:langString
United States, Petitioner v. Michael Williams
rdf:langString
Federal statute prohibiting the pandering of child pornography was not unconstitutionally overbroad. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
rdf:langString
United States v. Williams
rdf:langString
Scalia
rdf:langString
Supreme Court
rdf:langString
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography (offering or requesting to transfer, sell, deliver, or trade the items) did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did in fact not possess child pornography with which to trade. The decision overturned the Eleventh Circuit's ruling that the statute was facially void for overbreadth and vagueness. The Supreme Court reasoned that there is no First Amendment protection for offers to engage in illegal transactions, and that banning "the collateral speech that introduces such material into the child-pornography distribution network" does not in fact criminalize a "substantial amount of protected speech."
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Breyer
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
9217