** Major Legal News! ** Court Strikes Down Online Porn Law!!!!
 

WOW! What great news for the Porn Industry!!!!!


PHILADELPHIA -- A federal appeals court has ruled that a law meant to safeguard children against Internet pornography is riddled with problems that make it "constitutionally infirm."

A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Child Online Protection Act restricted free speech by barring Web page operators from posting information inappropriate for minors unless they limited the site to adults. The ruling upheld an injunction blocking the government from enforcing the law.

The court said that in practice, the law made it too difficult for adults to view material protected by the First Amendment, including many non-pornographic sites.

The law, signed by President Clinton and endorsed by President Bush, has never been enforced. It is one of several relating to Internet decency that courts have struck down.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which initiated the legal challenge, praised Thursday's ruling.

"It's clear that the law would make it a crime to communicate a whole range of information to adults," said ACLU associate legal director Ann Beeson.

Calls to the Justice Department, which had argued in favor of the law, were not immediately returned. The government may ask the 3rd Circuit to rehear the case or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Previously, the 3rd Circuit had ruled the law unconstitutional on grounds that it allowed the legality of Internet content to be judged by "contemporary community standards."

On appeal, the Supreme Court said that evaluation standard alone did not make the law unconstitutional, and sent the case back for further evaluation.

In Thursday's opinion, the court said that in seeking to define material harmful to minors, the law made no distinction between things inappropriate for a 5-year-old and things harmful to someone in their early teens.

The judges said that while the law sought to get around free-speech arguments by making the restrictions apply only to Web operators who posted material for "commercial purposes," it didn't address what level of profitability was required.

The court also said screening methods suggested by the government, including requiring Web-page viewers to give a credit card number, would unfairly require adults to identify themselves before viewing constitutionally protected material such as medical sites offering sex advice.

" The court also said screening methods suggested by the government, including requiring Web-page viewers to give a credit card number, would unfairly require adults to identify themselves before viewing constitutionally protected material such as medical sites offering sex advice."

... good news ?? wouldn´t it be great if surfers MUST show creditcard to view porn ??

This repeal now means you are a lot safer with TGP's for example. Hardcore Banners also. The way it was designed with this law TGP's could have been nailed for displaying hardcore previews even.

Plus with the credit card requirement thrown out, you can do sites like the old days with complete wide open access and make your bucks on side mainstream ads.

I would have just stopped/sold my tgp's. :)

This is a great ruling for the constitution and free speech.

Maybe the anti-porn crowd will go try to work on a better solution, like a .kids domain or something. Even though .kids has a lot of potential problems (who decides what's appropriate and what's not), it's a much better solution than trying to censor free speech on the existing internet.

idiots....

this is the quote from the 1996 ruling...

nice to be "milk behind the ears",
so many discoveries every day
;-)))

Who is an idiot?

Court Strikes Down Internet Porn Law
Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Law Intended to Keep Kids From Online Porn

The Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA March 6

For the second time, a federal appeals court has ruled that a law meant to keep Internet pornography away from children is unconstitutional.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Thursday the Child Online Protection Act, which barred Web page operators from posting information inappropriate for minors unless they limited the site to adults, restricted free speech.

The court said that in practice, the law made it too difficult for adults to view material protected by the First Amendment, including many non-pornographic sites.

The ruling, which upheld an injunction barring the government from enforcing the law, was praised by the American Civil Liberties Union, which initiated the legal challenge.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030306_2754.html

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Fiction
[B]

Who is an idiot?

*************************************

everyone who operates on the web because of the law which was struck down in 1996 and still takes that AP article as HOT NEWS
;-))))

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Serge_Oprano
[B]I think you are confusing the Communications Decency Act (which was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1996 or 1997) with the newer Child Online Protection Act. The Child Online Protection Act is still making its way through the courts. The Supreme Court sent it back to the appeals court last year. Now the appeals court has said that it is unconstitutional. This is an important ruling.

w00h00 SERGE SPEAKS :glugglug :thumbsup

ok,
my bad...

in best impersonation of 12 Clicks:
"Do I know you"?

Oh yeah !! that will be great ! Credit card = view , no credit card ... no view ! its the law !

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

One of these days, the right wing conservatives are just going to have to face reality that the majority of people like sex, like porn and want it delivered discreetly in the privacy of their home via the Net.

Plus this ruling provides an excellent basis to further cloud the legal confusion over what is and what is not within community standards.

Thank you to these fair, wise and just judges that issued this ruling!

"The law, signed by President Clinton"

No politician is the friend of porn. What do you think? Clinton signed this AND CDA. Why?

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
6/26/96

'Today, the Supreme Court ruled that portions of the Communications Decency Act addressing indecency are not constitutional. We will study its opinion closely.

The administration remains firmly committed to the provisions -- both in the CDA and elsewhere in the criminal code -- that prohibit the transmission of obscenity over the Internet and via other media.'

Politicians create legistlation based on what demands for change their constituents place on them.

I really think online porn is so heavily integrated into the browsing habits of such an enormous amount of people that you will be seeing fewer and fewer people bitching about it.

KRL,

I agree with you but I think we pornographers are no
safer from such legislation under Democrats than Republicans. Protecting porn is not popular in either party.

Even many of our customers are against porn in public - in front of their wives and in front of their friends. Nearly all politicians are.

The ACLU and the Supreme Court have been our best friends.

Yes indeed, the ACLU has been extremely good for our industry.

Janet Reno never tried to enforce this bullshit law.

Obscenity prosecutions were down tremendously under the Clinton administration. That's called respect for free speech and the constitution. Not like the right wing anti-constitution crowd who would put you in jail for showing nudity. Read this:



Flores joined former Attorney General Ed Meese and a dozen leaders of conservative groups to release figures showing federal obscenity prosecutions are down more than 70 percent over the past five years.

The Justice Department rejected the charges and released its own figures showing a 162 percent increase in prosecutions involving obscenity aimed at children.

The political and religious leaders gathered in Washington blasted the Clinton-Reno record on pursuing makers and distributors of pornography. They said the Justice Department's own statistics compiled by a Syracuse University professor represent the first such effort to assemble the data.

A Justice Department spokesman acknowledged that prosecutions of adult obscenity cases are down, but said that reflected a decision to shift resources to fight child exploitation cases involving pornography.

The Justice Department said prosecutions have shifted away from charging consenting adults engaged in sending pornographic materials because the threat to children is considered a much greater danger.


Clinton left adult pornographers alone and went after child porn instead. That's the way it should be, don't you think?

Apparently conservatives think that porn and child porn are equally evil. Do you agree with the conservatives or with Bill Clinton?

http://www6.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/10/27/email/smut/

They should focus on the CP sites and the sites that really go past the line, like where they rape girls for real.

They are....and next they will come after the legits....Ashhahahahaha is the anit-christ

I've heard a little about porn... but what is it?

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, neither a conservative nor a liberal. I consider myself an independent with a heavy dose of libertarianism. I don't care much for party politics except for it's pure value as entertainment.

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was passed in 1996. It was signed by Republicans. It was signed by Democrats. It was signed by President Clinton. The law would have effectively made verification of age (most likely by credit card verification) a requirement of law for porn sites (aee the court ACLU case for details). The section in question had no reference to child porn or obscenity. This was a requirement on ALL porn. This is precisely what the case brought by the ACLU hung on. The CDA didn't even require that any exempt material must have socially redeemable value.

At the time, many of us wondered whether this would mean the end of free sites. No one knew in what way this legislation would be enforced. The Communications Decency Act was an unconstitutional act that took aim directly at internet porn and would have required age verification just to view free porn pics online.
The ACLU thought it was unconstitutional and so, luckily, did the The Supreme Court.

To use the vernacular of party politics, it doesn't make much sense to me that a "liberal" webmaster would consider "conservatives" to be the root of all anti-pornography measures when a Democratic president signed such an act. Clinton supported it. Clinton believed in it. Clinton signed it. If Bush had signed CDA, Democrats would say it was because he was a "conservative anti-porn Republican". Since Clinton signed such an act into law, should we then also and fairly label Democrats as "conservative anti-porn Democrats"? How can a pornographer POSSIBLY defend Clinton signing CDA? Do you think for some reason that Democrats care about some low-life pornographers and Republicans don't? Neither does.

Remember this important point. After the Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutional, Clinton released a statement disagreeing with them!

Showing statistics that one party is more anti-porn than another makes no sense to OUR rights. It's like a World War II Polish citizen arguing which was better - the Germans attacking from the West or the Russians from the East. Politicians are the enemy of pornography. Democrats and Republicans, enemies both. Two groups, both of which signed into legislation laws that would have restricted all and criminalized some elements of our business that are presently legal if it weren't for the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court.

We cannot ignore the hard evidence that a Democratic president signed an unconstitutional document that would have harmed many of our businesses. We also cannot ignore the fact that a Republican one would do the same thing. NEITHER party has nor will defend your right to continue in this business. We are pornographers - immoral scum of the Earth to most people. There is no higher ground. It's all dirt down here. We're the seedy underground - the purveyors of backroom sex and distributors of filth to 50 year old palm pushing poorly dressed men named Larry.

Reno was not respecting free speech by not enforcing CDA. She believed in it wholeheartedly. At the time, she was busy defending the law in court. RENO vs the ACLU. June 26, 1997.

We can choose a party and back it all we want on issues of economics and liberty. We may disagree as to the roots of poverty and whether we should do anything about it. We can disagree as to whether people should pay for their own medicine or whether health is a state-given right. We can disagree on isues of taxation and "fairness". We can give a party our vote. When it comes to porn though, they'll vote AGAINST us. They have. They will.

If you want to stand up for porn, you have to stand up everyone that disagrees with it, not just those that may agree with somne of your other politics.

Damn!

















:thumbsup

:thumbsup :thumbsup so you are telling me the Liberal's god did something wrong.:1orglaugh while he was Wacking off 2 Penthouse.

You are totally wrong and your post is long and pointless.

What part of "Bill Clinton decreased the prosecution of legal porn by 80% over the Republican administration" don't you understand?

You are one of those people who just can't admit that Bill Clinton did a lot of great things for this country.

There is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans. 80% difference, in fact.

Wake up.

Mr. Fiction,

I think Clinton was an excellent president. I am not attacking Clinton. I am pointing out that he was ANTI-PORN. He signed legislation that proves he was anti-porn. He publicly disagreed with the Supreme Court after they ruled CDA unconstitutional. Nothing you say can changes that very simple fact. It is a matter of very public record. Clinton was ANTI-porn, not PRO-porn.

Your argument is that during the Clinton administration the prosecution of legal porn decreased 80% but all the while he was signing and defending legislation that would have made illegal 90% of all porn web sites - as is. I'm glad there were less obscenity prosecutions under Clinton than under Bush but I was extremely disappointed when he signed that bill.

How can you ignore the fact that legislation is IMMENSELY important to our business and single-mindledly focus on prosecutions?

Clinton was not a shining light for pornography. He was exactly the opposite. If it weren't for the Supreme Court we'd probably only be accepting VISA cards as proof of age to view pics on a free site. No more free samples, no TGPs, no galleries, no nude tours. (Though some would argue that would be better for business).

You are confusing YOUR beliefs with your party's beliefs. You have every right to put your party politics AHEAD of your business if you wish. The democratic party is not going to defend porn. They didn't defend porn. "Legalize porn" is not on the Democractic party platform. Porn is NOT a party issue.

Just answer this for me, please. If Bush were to sign CDA today, would you be upset and rail against "the evil Republicans"? Obviously. Were you upset when Clinton signed CDA? As the operator of free sites at the time, I was scared shitless when Clinton signed CDA. Are you new here?

Why do you refuse to hold two presidents up to the same standard? Why do you point to evidence in favor if your position on the one hand but completely ignore the evidence that contradicts it? I know the answer. You know the answer. Everyone knows the answer. Party politics.

It's US vs. THEM. Not US against SOME OF THEM.

Colin,

With all due respect, their are huge differences in the two administrations with regard to adult material.

Clinton was in favor of legislation to protect children, which I think most of us agree with in principle. The real question here is how to most effectively protect children without stripping away the rights of adults.

Bush is interested in preventing consenting adults from viewing adult material from the privacy of their own homes, even AFTER they have proven they are over the age of consent. This would not be problematic if he limited the scope of "obscenity" to things that are truly "obscene" like rape, beasty, hardcore degradation, etc. However, this administration and previous republican administrations believe that all pornography is bad, which includes a man and a women having regular, every day sex.

Clinton was more interested in politics and what the people wanted. Most Americans want to protect their children, which is why he focused on laws that related to this issue and did not focus on obscenity prosecutions.

Bush is more interested in pushing his personal religious beliefs on this country, which includes anything he thinks is evil. That is scary.

Like you, I don't consider myself a democrat or a republican. Both Bush and Clinton have their strong points and their weak points.

However, when it comes to adult material, this is a black and white issue. Democrats are definitely more "friendly" to our industry and are much more likely to preserve the 1st amendment rights of adults to view material that others might not agree with. Too see into the future....just look to the past :)

The only encouraging fact is that while our government has become more conservative, people in general have become more liberal. There have been several "obscenity" cases tried in the last year or so in very conservative venues which were acquitted. This is good news and shows that although people might not want to see certain material themselves, they also don't want their rights and the rights of other adults stripped away......

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

In public sure, they all have to take that stance or they'd be finished politically.

But, I'd love to run some semin tests on the Oval Office carpets.

have there ever been any politicians in favor of porn? pro-porn?

too busy fucking and offing interns

another win for the constitution :thumbsup

Rumor has it that JFK's antics in the oval office when Jackie wasn't around, make Clinton look like a choir boy.

JFK, Bobby, and Peter all did Marilyn.

'Texas is the reason, that the presidents Dead.'