from the article i read about it (url below) basically scalia feels that part of the law need not be applied, which is how he could agree with this law. that's lame - why not write a law where everything IS applicable to what you want to prosecute instead of allowing for future issues that will not only take time but will cost tons of money to sort out?

"The new law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child pornography. It does not require that someone actually possesses child pornography."

"Scalia, in his opinion for the court, said the law takes a reasonable approach to the issue by applying it to situations where the purveyor of the material believes or wants a listener to believe that he has actual child pornography.

First Amendment protections do not apply to "offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography," Scalia said.

Likewise, he said, the law does not cover "the sorts of sex scenes found in R-rated movies.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/...tus_child_porn