## Facts

- Lawrence Charles Matthews, a journalist, investigated Internet child pornography as a potential news story.
- From July to December 1996, Matthews entered online chat rooms, engaged in sexually explicit communications, and traded child-pornography images with persons he believed to be underage girls; several were undercover FBI agents.
- Matthews admitted he sent and received child pornography but claimed he did so only to research and gain access to the illicit market, not for sexual gratification.
- A search recovered approximately 160 child-pornography images associated with Matthews’s online activity.
- A federal grand jury indicted Matthews in the District of Maryland for multiple counts of receiving and transmitting child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252 and related provisions.
- The district court barred Matthews from presenting to the jury a complete First Amendment “journalistic purpose” defense, while permitting motive evidence only insofar as it related to statutory intent.
- Matthews was convicted and sentenced within the Sentencing Guidelines; the court declined to grant a downward departure based on his asserted research purpose.

## Issues

1. Whether the First Amendment entitles a defendant charged with receiving and transmitting child pornography to a complete defense based on engaging in the conduct solely for legitimate journalistic purposes.
2. Whether the court of appeals may review a district court’s refusal to grant a downward departure when the district court recognized its authority to depart but chose not to do so.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed Matthews’s convictions.
- The court held the First Amendment does not create a special “journalistic purpose” exemption from generally applicable child-pornography statutes.
- The court upheld the district court’s refusal to allow the proposed First Amendment defense to be presented as a complete bar to liability.
- The court held it lacked authority to review the district court’s discretionary refusal to depart downward because the sentencing judge understood he had the power to depart and simply declined.
- The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- The press has no constitutional immunity from generally applicable criminal laws merely because enforcement burdens newsgathering or reporting activity.
- Child pornography is unprotected speech, and the government has a compelling interest in prohibiting its receipt and distribution; a defendant’s asserted journalistic motive does not negate criminal liability under those statutes.
- A district court may permit evidence of motive only to the extent it is relevant to statutory elements (such as knowledge or intent), without recognizing a free-standing First Amendment affirmative defense.
- In the Fourth Circuit, a district court’s discretionary refusal to depart downward under the Sentencing Guidelines is not reviewable on appeal when the district court recognized its authority to depart but elected not to do so.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that investigative or journalistic motives do not constitutionally excuse sending or receiving child pornography under generally applicable federal statutes, and it declined to review the district court’s discretionary denial of a downward departure where the sentencing judge acknowledged authority to depart.


United States v. Matthews, 209 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2000)