309 F.3d 1312, 1318-19 (11th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Acheson, 195 F.3d 645, 650 (11th Cir.1999)) (emphasis added). Notably, however, the over-breadth doctrine is “employed ... sparing ly and only as a last resort.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). Furthermore, as recently noted by the Supreme Court, certain categories of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. See United States v. Stevens, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1584, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (citations omitted). Included in these categories of unprotected speech is child pornography. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 763, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982); see also Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 245-46, 122 S.Ct. 1389, 152 L.Ed.2d 403 (2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Miller, 776 F.2d 978, 980 n.
holding that the first and fourteenth amendment forbid criminalizing the private possession of obscenity holding that the first amendment does not protect obscenity or pornography produced with actual children holding that the first amendment does not protect true threats against the president holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment holding first amendment does not protect nonexpressive conduct