ABSTRACT
The judiciary has been actively involved with the pornography issue, but guidelines from court decisions have confused the question and denied to other decisionmakers meaningful standards of judgment. One reason for the ineffectiveness of antipornography laws is that demands for their enforcement frequently collide with constitutional guarantees of free expression. The Burger Court also was concerned with child pornography. A major problem for the Court in handling child pornography cases was that they fit none of the categories previously established by the Supreme Court. By virtue of their controversial nature and constitutional sensitivity, interpretations by the Supreme Court on pornography have resulted in split decisions and confusing precedents. Most contemporary presidents have had little to say about pornography. When pornography and the media are the focus of attention, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) becomes an agency of great importance. The FCC supports station management's control over content.
