BOISE, Idaho — In a case decided late last week, the Idaho Supreme Court rejected arguments that the state's ban on child pornography violated the First Amendment guarantee to free expression.

The high court unanimously ruled May 21 in State of Idaho v. Morton that the law includes enough restrictions on the kind of material it prohibits to avoid being overly broad and infringing on constitutionally protected rights.

Raymond Morton of Kootenai County challenged the law after being arrested for possessing sexually exploitive material for noncommercial purposes. He maintained that the ban prohibited not only illegal conduct but conduct that could be considered legal under a number of court decisions.

Morton pleaded guilty in March 2003 but only on the condition that he be allowed to appeal the constitutional question. The crime carries a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Justice Wayne Kidwell, writing for the court, acknowledged that photographs or videos simply displaying child genitalia are protected expression under the Constitution. But he said Idaho law goes further in requiring possession of that material for the purpose of sexual gratification was sufficient to legitimately create the crime of child pornography.

"The statute's proscription is not so broad as to outlaw all depictions of minors in a state of nudity but rather only those depictions that constitute child pornography," Kidwell wrote.

The ruling appeared to counter a September 2002 decision by the state Court of Appeals declaring another provision of the child-pornography law unconstitutional. The appellate court ruled that the prohibition on sexual battery of a child by photographing or videotaping nudity was unconstitutionally broad.

In that ruling, the three-judge court held that the law did not include sufficient restrictions to avoid covering photography of an entirely innocent nature.

The high court noted that decision but said it involved a different section of the law.