For the second week in a row, the courts have given First Amendment advocates something to cheer about. Following the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that blocked law enforcement officials from being able to search the Tattered Cover's customer files, which was handed down earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional.

The "virtual" child pornography law made it a crime to distribute or own materials that featured actors who appear to be minors engaged in sexually explicit acts through the use of a variety of techniques including computer-generated images. In its 6—3 decision, the court found the law to be "overbroad" and agreed that the law prohibited speech that has redeeming social value. The plaintiffs in the case, the Free Speech Coalition, as well as its supporters, argued that such movies as Traffic and plays like Romeo & Juliet would be criminalized if the law were allowed to stand.

The Association of American Publishers filed an amicus brief in the case and was joined by the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. Representatives from both organizations stressed that their main concern was that the act expanded the definition of what was necessary to protect children. "There are laws on the books that protect minors. This went well beyond what is needed," said Chris Finan, executive director of ABFFE.