October Term 2007 · Docket 06-694

Does describing child pornography violate federal law?

The government argues that describing illegal images is a crime. The defendant argues that describing them is protected speech.

Official caption
United States v. Williams
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    General Clement argued that speech proposing unlawful transactions is unprotected. He stated that falsely proposing such transactions is also unprotected.

    Mr. Diaz argued that the law carries severe penalties. He claimed the statute is vague and overbroad on its face.

    Justice Roberts asked about a movie reviewer describing a film. He questioned if such a review violates the law.

    Justice Ginsburg asked about a film showing a twelve-year-old. She questioned if the actor is a young adult.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the limits of free speech. The government claims that describing child pornography is illegal. The defendant claims that describing it is protected expression. The Court must decide if the law is too broad.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 30, 2007.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants the Court to uphold the law. It seeks to criminalize describing child pornography.

The defendant wants the Court to strike down the law. It seeks to protect speech about illegal materials.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government argues that proposing an unlawful transaction is not protected speech. It claims that falsely proposing such a transaction is also unprotected.

The defendant argues that the law is unconstitutionally vague. It claims the statute captures protected speech about materials.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Stevens asked if describing a war crime film violates the statute. He questioned if a person describing such a film commits a crime.

Justice Souter asked about receiving unsolicited child pornography. He asked if reporting it to police violates the law.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between illegal conduct and protected speech. It determines whether describing illegal images is a crime. The outcome shapes how citizens discuss sensitive materials.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON