U.S. v. Matthews: Too Harsh?
Larry Matthews was a freelance reporter developing a follow-up story to a piece he did a year earlier about child pornography trafficking on the Internet. In the process of his investigation, he received and sent several images of kiddie porn. One image made its way to an undercover FBI officer.
Matthews was convicted on two counts of child pornography trafficking. The judge sentenced him to 18 months in prison and a $4,000 fine.
The truth is there were many things that Matthews could have done to keep himself out of jail. With a topic as controversial as kiddie porn, Matthews should have covered all of his bases. It was a fair ruling because there was no proof he was working on a story, and there was an enormous amount of evidence to suggest that he was trafficking in child pornography.
Also, one needs to ask if this was the only way for Matthews to get his story. A reporter should not break the law to get his story, even if it means he can’t complete the story as a result. Matthews should have definitely told somebody what he was doing and made further preparations so if he did get caught he wouldn’t be legally vulnerable.
Reporters should be more careful as a result of this case’s ruling. It is proof that reporters that go undercover can be held accountable for their actions if they are caught in an illegal act. Reporters should make sure to document in writing the fact that they are doing a story. The documents should be backed up with a written verification from the editors of the publication the reporter is working for.
If the subject of Matthew’s story was about regular pornography instead of kiddie porn, his case would have definitely had a different outcome. Trafficking in regular pornography is not illegal, but the reporter should still inform his editors about the story early on in case the images are sent through their server.
