not protected speech and that Defendant’s challenges are more properly addressed by requiring the government to prove “knowing” receipt or possession. (Doc. no. 86, pp. 6-7.) The government has the better argument. , In addressing these challenges, the Court begins by noting that an overbreadth challenge is one based on a statute’s “possible and indirect burdens on speech.” Am. Booksellers v. Webb, 919 F.2d 1493, 1499-1500 (11th Cir.1990). As explained by the Eleventh Circuit, the overbreadth doctrine “is designed to protect ‘the public from the chilling effect ... a statute has on protected speech; [accordingly,] the court will strike down the statute even though the governmental entity enforced the statute against those engaged in unprotected activities.’ ” Weaver v. (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). As child pornography is not protected speech,
holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution recognizing the supreme courts interpretation of the federal feloninpossession statute as binding recognizing courts duty to reconcile opinions from the georgia supreme court recognizing the supreme courts holding in ferber recognizing that the supreme court maintained the trial courts fact finding authority without setting a new standard in booker