Embarrassed by accusations that his administration is "soft on child pornography," President Clinton properly rebuked the Justice Department for retreating from a broader definition of the crime.
Fortunately, the president has ordered that new legislation be drawn up that would ensure "the broadest possible protections against child pornography and exploitation."Such action would prevent the travesty that occurred earlier when federal officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to drop the charges against a man who was appealing an earlier conviction based on the federal government's own definition of child pornography.
In a puzzling reversal of previous policy, the U.S. solicitor general had requested dismissal of a case against a Pennsylvania man convicted for owning three videotapes showing young girls posing suggestively in bathing suits and leotards.
Clinton responded to objections from many quarters, including pro-family organizations and members of the U.S. Senate. After reading the law himself, the president correctly concluded that it needs to be strengthened.
Quick steps must be taken to eliminate any ambiguity. The Child Protection Act of 1984 defines child pornography as depictions of minors engaged in sexual conduct or "lascivious exhibition."
Prosecutors in both the Reagan and Bush administrations interpreted the law broadly, arguing that it could be violated if known pornographers depicted minors posed suggestively in skimpy clothing.
The broad approach is always preferable, because acts of child pornography are heinous crimes that require the most conservative interpretation. An appeals court in Philadelphia upheld Knox's conviction by adopting the government's expansive definition of the 1984 law.
It ruled the law is violated when a camera "unilaterally focuses on a minor child's clothed genital area with the obvious intent to produce an image sexually arousing to pedophiles."
This broader definition is closer to the mark. The strict definition of the federal law presented by the U.S. Solicitor General is disturbing, because if allowed to stand it would most certainly open the flood gates of child pornography and accelerate the disgusting sexual exploitation of children already occurring in many parts of the country.
The Justice Department should act expeditiously to ensure the passage of a stronger, more beneficial law for the protection of all American children. As the president said, "all forms of child pornography are offensive and harmful."