Associate Deputy Attorney General Daniel Collins defended the "Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002" before the House Judiciary Committee's Crime Subcommittee.

The subcommittee is slated to vote on the measure later today.

The types of images prohibited under the legislation "are precisely the sort that appeal to the worst form of prurient interest, that are patently offensive in the light of any applicable community standards and that lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value in virtually any context," Collins said.

Proposed by Crime Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and backed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, the legislation came in response to a Supreme Court ruling that voided a 1996 prohibition on images that had been digitally manipulated to appear to depict children.

On April 16, the Supreme Court struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act, which outlawed the possession or distribution of pornography containing computer-generated images showing children apparently engaged in sex acts.

Supporters and cosponsors of Smith's bill say it is more narrowly crafted than the now-defunct 1996 mandate and as such should pass constitutional muster.

But Rep. Robert Scott, D-Va., grilled Collins, questioning whether the bill had any chance of surviving Supreme Court scrutiny.

"The Supreme Court went to great lengths to say unless it's a real minor, it's not illegal," Scott said. Scott also cited what he said was the High Court's contention that the First Amendment is "turned upside-down" if defendants are forced to prove that they did not employ real minors in creating a digitally manipulated work.

Under Smith's proposal, digitally generated pictures of prepubescent children would be banned outright.

While images depicting older children would also be banned, the bill creates a new legal safe harbor for pornographers who can prove that they did not use real children to create their images.

"It seems to me (the Supreme Court) is saying 'if you can't distinguish (between real and digitally created images) that's not the defendant's problem, that's your problem,'" Scott told Collins.

But Collins said the Supreme Court ruling expressly left open the possibility of creating the type of "affirmative defense" called for under Smith's proposal.

"We can craft a narrowly drawn prohibition," Collins said. "We can criminalize (morphed content) subject to the appropriate affirmative defense."

Reported by Washtech.com, http://www.washtech.com .

12:37 CST
Reposted 14:45 CST