The court mentioned that these provisions failed to comply with constitution because they created a strong possibility for convicting innocent persons who had not engaged in child pornography.
Also see,[5][6] In part, the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990 was designed to "correct[] the record keeping provisions of the Child Pornography and Obscenity Enforcement Act so that it will comply with a U.S. district court's decision in the case of American Library Association versus Thornburgh.
"[7] According to the Bill's summary,[8] apart from removing the unconstitutional provision, it was also intended: The Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990 was composed of two subtitles.
After the amendments, the same Plaintiffs whose claims resulted in the determination of the unconstitutionality of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, challenged again the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2257 as amended by the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990 in the case named American Library Association v. Reno.
In this case the court discussed the balance between the sexual exploitation of children in the production of pornography and infringement of the right of free speech guaranteed by the Constitution.
Plaintiffs, producers and distributors of sexually explicit material, indicated chill out effect that was allegedly created by provisions on recordkeeping and the deterrence child pornography and thus the Act was infringing First Amendment rights.