Not sure if this was on here yet since we don't have a SEARCH feature.
Court Says Web Porn Law Blocks Free Speech
NEW YORK - Just as the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to review the Child Online Protection Act, a Virginia court has declared unconstitutional a state law that aims to block sexually explicit material on the Internet.
Two weeks ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a lower-court ruling that the statute infringes First Amendment freedoms.
The Child Online Protection Act is a 1998 federal statute that imposes criminal sanctions on commercial Web sites that do not block "harmful speech" (such as child pornography) from minors.
The court reasoned that while the state should protect minors from such material, it is impossible to do so without violating the constitutional rights of adults.
"In an attempt to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, will effectively suppress a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive," Judge James R. Spencer wrote.
In Virginia, it is a crime to use the Internet to sell, rent or lend pictures or written narratives that depict "sexual excitement, conduct or sadomasochistic abuse" to juveniles.
The law's supporters say states should balance protecting children with the rights of adult Internet users.
Several Internet rights groups, such as People for the American Way, argue that the law's application is overly broad. A federal judge declared the law unconstitutional in 2001, and the state then appealed.
Elliot M. Mincberg, legal director at People for the American Way, supports the court's take on the matter, stressing that it is the job of parents -- not Congress -- to monitor Internet use by children.
Similar laws in New York, New Mexico and Michigan also have been declared unconstitutional.
Court Says Web Porn Law Blocks Free Speech
NEW YORK - Just as the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to review the Child Online Protection Act, a Virginia court has declared unconstitutional a state law that aims to block sexually explicit material on the Internet.
Two weeks ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a lower-court ruling that the statute infringes First Amendment freedoms.
The Child Online Protection Act is a 1998 federal statute that imposes criminal sanctions on commercial Web sites that do not block "harmful speech" (such as child pornography) from minors.
The court reasoned that while the state should protect minors from such material, it is impossible to do so without violating the constitutional rights of adults.
"In an attempt to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, will effectively suppress a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive," Judge James R. Spencer wrote.
In Virginia, it is a crime to use the Internet to sell, rent or lend pictures or written narratives that depict "sexual excitement, conduct or sadomasochistic abuse" to juveniles.
The law's supporters say states should balance protecting children with the rights of adult Internet users.
Several Internet rights groups, such as People for the American Way, argue that the law's application is overly broad. A federal judge declared the law unconstitutional in 2001, and the state then appealed.
Elliot M. Mincberg, legal director at People for the American Way, supports the court's take on the matter, stressing that it is the job of parents -- not Congress -- to monitor Internet use by children.
Similar laws in New York, New Mexico and Michigan also have been declared unconstitutional.
Comment