Holy Cow: U.S. judge blocks 1998 online porn law

[Rochard]

While I believe we need to protect children from seeing porn, I've said time and time again that parents (and lawmakers) should be much more concerned about more dangerous things on the Internet. Seems like finally one Judge gets it.

From Yahoo News

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.

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Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.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

[munki]

[Phoenix]

its about time parents should be held responsible for bringing up their children


imagine you can easily put ona content filter or website filter to keep your kids away from adult sites..yet they do nothing and scream bloody murder when shit goes wrong.

dont worry parents just turn on barney and you dont have to do anything

lazy

[crockett]

That's good to hear.

[Brooke Anderson]

Great, at last we can quote somebody as understand what its all about.

[Big_Red]

Someone with power actually understands. I am stunned.

[Sarah_Jayne]

at last a bit of a positive result

[born]

Thanks for the post...

b-

[psychomantis]

YAY! That makes me happy. I'm glad that someone finally sees that it's the parents responsibility to keep children away from adult things. Duh.

[ElvisManson]

Looks like the government was using the excuse that parents are not responsible enough to look after their own kids, therefore they should go after the evil porno people..


"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"

[Buzz]

A drop of Common Sense in the ocean of American Hypocrisy

[BVF]

Originally Posted by munki

Read the article first gotdammit...

[Techie Media]

Good find richard, Looking forward to seeing you in Phx next week bro.

[DOCTOR 30]

It's on to the Supreme Court after this IF they'll accept the case.

[sarettah]

I have finally learned to look at the board before posting. Only took 5 years.

I was about to post on the same thing...lol.

link to another article http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by DOCTOR 30

It's on to the Supreme Court after this IF they'll accept the case.

Think they'll take it?

[tASSy]

Originally Posted by Buzz

A drop of Common Sense in the ocean of American Hypocrisy

emphasis on the "a drop" part of this. we need more drops.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Think they'll take it?

I see no reason the supreme court would hear it. Nothing seems that overturnable nor controversial. Just boiled it down to parents can pay a few bucks and block what they want to block, so lets not restrict freedom of speech.

[Jenny S.]

Here's CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/interne....ap/index.html

[ThreeDeviants]

ya, this is a case where parents should do more to protect their kids... not the government... excessive laws don't make up for lazy parenting =/

[Splum]

Sweet another useless Clinton law struck down.

[Jenny S.]

Originally Posted by Splum

Sweet another useless Clinton law struck down.

I was wondering how long it would take until someone would bring up Clinton.

The quick facts:

Clinton signed it into law but Sen. Coats (R-IN) introduced the Child Online Protection Act and the 105th Rep. dominated Congress passed it. In 2004 in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union the current administration tried to uphold it in the Supreme Court.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by Jenny S.

Clinton signed it into law

Yes he sure did, he could have vetoed it. Great guy that Clinton.

[he-fox]

that judge should run for president. he seems to have a bit of common sense

[chupacabra]

i am absolutely *stunned*. best news i have heard in the last year in relation to our arena, bravo to the judge who valued free speech above the fucking "...won't someone think of the children?" fucksticks..

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by Splum

Yes he sure did, he could have vetoed it. Great guy that Clinton.

You do realize that COPA was attatched to the budget bill and like every such bill not every side is getting what they want?

During last-minute budget negotiations, the Clinton Administration reportedly objected to provisions of the bill pushed by Rep. Michael Oxley, R-OH, citing a Justice Department analysis that it was probably unconstitutional and would likely draw resources away from more important law enforcement efforts. But negotiators apparently failed to strike the Oxley language from the $500 billion Omnibus Appropriations measure due to be voted on in both the House and Senate and signed by the President tomorrow.

http://www.epic.org/free_speech/cens..._10_15_98.html

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by mardigras

You do realize that COPA was attatched to the budget bill and like every such bill not every side is getting what they want?

http://www.epic.org/free_speech/cens..._10_15_98.html

Just like the bill they are trying to pass right now with $25mil for the California Spinach industry bailout?

[D]

The U.S. has a great legal architecture... it's just the people that screw things up.

Hopefully, this judge's words will inspire others to continue the work against those that would limit others rights for the illusion of security.

Props to the ACLU. This reminds me that it's been awhile since my last donation...

[mattz]

Rochard...i miss you in blue

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Just like the bill they are trying to pass right now with $25mil for the California Spinach industry bailout?

Pretty much just like that.

[CheneyRumsfeld]

finally somebody gets it.
its YOUR kid.
watch him.

he is not MY kid.
I am not responsible for him.

if these fucked up laws are allowed to contnue, they will expand to radio, tv, newspapers, magazines books and more.
then what?
all because some imbecle with the ability to breed shouldn't.
the tv or computer is not a babysitter.
and just because you can push out a kid DOES NOT make you a parent.

</RANT>

[Splum]

Originally Posted by D

Props to the ACLU. This reminds me that it's been awhile since my last donation...

Here is where your donation money is going, to protect child molesters.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/prote...s20000831.html

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by Splum

Here is where your donation money is going, to protect child molesters.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/prote...s20000831.html

Um Splum what is wrong with that?
Freedom of speech applies to every individual and group. More often than not though when defense is required it almost always is for a group or person that most would consider the most vile or undeserving. The type of speech we desire to hear the least is typically the most important to protect. Remember erosion happens at the fringes and many would also place a porn smuggler in the same group as NAMBLA.

[Splum]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

More often than not though when defense is required it almost always is for a group or person that most would consider the most vile or undeserving.

NAMBLA is more than vile and undeserving they promote ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. Their literature specifically states its OK TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN. Tell me how the fuck you can defend that, thats not about free speech its about the right to instigate crimes and not be held liable for them. Its fucking sick.

[D]

Originally Posted by Splum

NAMBLA is more than vile and undeserving they promote ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. Their literature specifically states its OK TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN. Tell me how the fuck you can defend that, thats not about free speech its about the right to instigate crimes and not be held liable for them. Its fucking sick.

We have laws in place to prohibit actions of that sort.

I don't agree with what NAMBLA stands for at all, but I do agree with their right to say and openly discuss whatever they want to without oppression or censorship.

It's called a "Free Society."