Federal Judge strikes down anti-porn legislation - GoFuckYourself.com

Dirty D · 03-22-2007, 10:21 AM

Finally a judge that has some common sense!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070322/...ernet_blocking

PHILADELPHIA - A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to government efforts to control Internet pornography, striking down a 1998 U.S. law that makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators to let children access "harmful" material.
ADVERTISEMENT

In the ruling, the judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.

The law would have criminalized Web sites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards." The sites would have been expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web sites backed by the
American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law. They argued that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech.

The
U.S. Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.

Technology experts said parents now have more serious concerns than Web sites with pornography. For instance, the threat of online predators has caused worries among parents whose children use social-networking sites such as News Corp.'s MySpace.

The case sparked a legal firestorm last year when Google challenged a Justice Department subpoena seeking information on what people search for online. Government lawyers had asked Google to turn over 1 million random Web addresses and a week's worth of Google search queries.

A judge sharply limited the scope of the subpoena, which Google had fought on trade secret, not privacy, grounds.

To defend the nine-year-old Child Online Protection Act, government lawyers attacked software filters as burdensome and less effective, even though they have previously defended their use in public schools and libraries.

"It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its source," a government attorney, Peter D. Keisler, argued in a post-trial brief.

Critics of the law argued that filters work best because they let parents set limits based on their own values and their child's age.

The law addressed material accessed by children under 17, but applied only to content hosted in the United States.

The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law. They also said the Justice Department could do more to enforce obscenity laws already on the books.

The 1998 law followed Congress' unsuccessful 1996 effort to ban online pornography. The Supreme Court in 1997 deemed key portions of that law unconstitutional because it was too vague and trampled on adults' rights.

The newer law narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and defined indecency more specifically.

In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries to use software filters if they receive certain federal funds. The high court upheld that law in 2003.

Dirty D · 03-22-2007, 11:18 AM

This needs to be used to fight .xxx

pocketkangaroo · 03-22-2007, 12:21 PM

Sad how far this board has fallen. A huge ruling like this and no one cares.

moneymotivates · 03-22-2007, 12:24 PM

its on fox news now

Barefootsies · 03-22-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Sad how far this board has fallen. A huge ruling like this and no one cares.

BVF · 03-22-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Sad how far this board has fallen. A huge ruling like this and no one cares.

Maybe because this is at least the third thread about it today?

NTSS · 03-22-2007, 01:57 PM

Finally some good news

The Sultan Of Smut · 03-22-2007, 02:12 PM

OMG the system works sometimes!

tASSy · 03-22-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dustman

This needs to be used to fight .xxx

agreed.

Va2k · 03-22-2007, 03:00 PM

Bump

BoyAlley · 03-22-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BVF

Maybe because this is at least the third thread about it today?

Exactly there's been at least 5 now I think?

03-22-2007, 10:21 AM	#1
Dirty D Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Paying Webmasters Millions Since 1999 Posts: 4,044	Federal Judge strikes down anti-porn legislation Finally a judge that has some common sense! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070322/...ernet_blocking PHILADELPHIA - A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to government efforts to control Internet pornography, striking down a 1998 U.S. law that makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators to let children access "harmful" material. ADVERTISEMENT In the ruling, the judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech. "Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall. The law would have criminalized Web sites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards." The sites would have been expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison. Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web sites backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law. They argued that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated. Technology experts said parents now have more serious concerns than Web sites with pornography. For instance, the threat of online predators has caused worries among parents whose children use social-networking sites such as News Corp.'s MySpace. The case sparked a legal firestorm last year when Google challenged a Justice Department subpoena seeking information on what people search for online. Government lawyers had asked Google to turn over 1 million random Web addresses and a week's worth of Google search queries. A judge sharply limited the scope of the subpoena, which Google had fought on trade secret, not privacy, grounds. To defend the nine-year-old Child Online Protection Act, government lawyers attacked software filters as burdensome and less effective, even though they have previously defended their use in public schools and libraries. "It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its source," a government attorney, Peter D. Keisler, argued in a post-trial brief. Critics of the law argued that filters work best because they let parents set limits based on their own values and their child's age. The law addressed material accessed by children under 17, but applied only to content hosted in the United States. The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law. They also said the Justice Department could do more to enforce obscenity laws already on the books. The 1998 law followed Congress' unsuccessful 1996 effort to ban online pornography. The Supreme Court in 1997 deemed key portions of that law unconstitutional because it was too vague and trampled on adults' rights. The newer law narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and defined indecency more specifically. In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries to use software filters if they receive certain federal funds. The high court upheld that law in 2003. __________________ Dirty D - ICQ #1326843 - $1 Million Dollars of Bonus Money - 8,000+ FHG! Glory Hole Girlz - Crack Whore Confessions - Tampa Bukkake - Slut Wife Training - Fuck a Fan Electricity Play - Porn Video Drive - Theater Sluts - Skunk Riley - Ukraine Amateurs - Strapon Sessions

03-22-2007, 11:18 AM	#2
Dirty D Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Paying Webmasters Millions Since 1999 Posts: 4,044	This needs to be used to fight .xxx __________________ Dirty D - ICQ #1326843 - $1 Million Dollars of Bonus Money - 8,000+ FHG! Glory Hole Girlz - Crack Whore Confessions - Tampa Bukkake - Slut Wife Training - Fuck a Fan Electricity Play - Porn Video Drive - Theater Sluts - Skunk Riley - Ukraine Amateurs - Strapon Sessions

03-22-2007, 01:57 PM	#7
NTSS Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Da Hood Posts: 5,688	Finally some good news __________________ ICQ: 150-803-430 Email: marketing7(at)cox(dot)net

03-22-2007, 12:21 PM	#3
pocketkangaroo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 8,452	Sad how far this board has fallen. A huge ruling like this and no one cares.

03-22-2007, 12:24 PM	#4
moneymotivates Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 511	its on fox news now

03-22-2007, 02:12 PM	#8
The Sultan Of Smut Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver Posts: 4,325	OMG the system works sometimes!

03-22-2007, 03:00 PM	#10
Va2k I’m still alive barley. Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Va Posts: 10,060	Bump