welsh
Junkmaster
Didn't we have a thread on this?
Ok, update-
Supreme Court debates online smut law
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 Posted: 7:11 PM EST (0011 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A lawyer for the Bush administration argued Tuesday that the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law that protects children from Internet pornography.
The case pits the free speech rights of adults against the power of Congress to control Internet commerce.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices that indecent material is "persistent and unavoidable" and causes "substantial psychological and physiological damage on children."
To illustrate his point, Olson said he went on his home computer over the weekend, typed in "free porn" on a search engine and 6 million Web sites popped up.
"And the numbers are growing exponentially," he said.
The government hopes the third time is the charm for federal efforts to protect minors from sexually explicit material on the Web.
The court struck down a 1996 law the year after it passed Congress and later stopped its replacement, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, or COPA, from going into effect.
Now the court is taking a second look at whether COPA represents government censorship or the lawful regulation of adult-themed businesses.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups immediately filed suit, claiming the law violates the First Amendment by criminalizing free speech.
A federal judge in Philadelphia issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the law from being enforced while the case was under way.
The act, passed by Congress in October 1998 and signed into law by President Clinton, would ban making "any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors."
To deal with First Amendment concerns that the law would be too narrow, the bill's authors defined "harmful material" based on "contemporary community standards."
The bill would prevent commercial content providers from posting free or unrestricted indecent material on the Internet that children could easily access.
Web sites would have to set up credit card verification or age identification checks to ensure children would be restricted from viewing or downloading pornographic material.
Maximum punishments would be six months in jail or $50,000 in fines.
ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson told the court that COPA was a "criminal statute that violates a whole range of protected speech."
She claimed it was an ineffective tool to keep children from objectionable material.
"Although the government claims the censorship law is necessary to protect minors, it has not even used all of the tools currently available to protect them from sexually explicit content," Beeson said.
The ACLU represents online businesses, artists and writers who offer sometimes graphic material, including sexual health information and advice.
Beeson said if a person operates a Web site on improving lovemaking for couples or about the HBO television series "Sex and the City," "You're going to be very worried."
At least one member of the court seemed to offer some support.
"This law seems to me to be very sweeping," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Other justices said the government has some power to limit access to indecent material.
"The way to do it is zoning," said Justice Stephen Breyer, using his term for technological screening tools, or blinders. "Congress says that's the solution. If that's not the solution, what is?"
Both sides agreed children can easily, if unwittingly, get access to smut online. At issue is who should bear the financial and psychological burden of setting up effective barriers: Web companies or parents?
Beeson said costly and time-consuming adults-only requirements would repel consumers and that other services, such as filtering software, are more effective and less intrusive.
Olson argued technologically savvy children can easily get around such devices, which parents can buy and install on their personal computers.
A ruling in the case is expected by late June.
The case is Ashcroft v. ACLU (03-0218)
Ok, update-
Supreme Court debates online smut law
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 Posted: 7:11 PM EST (0011 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A lawyer for the Bush administration argued Tuesday that the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law that protects children from Internet pornography.
The case pits the free speech rights of adults against the power of Congress to control Internet commerce.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices that indecent material is "persistent and unavoidable" and causes "substantial psychological and physiological damage on children."
To illustrate his point, Olson said he went on his home computer over the weekend, typed in "free porn" on a search engine and 6 million Web sites popped up.
"And the numbers are growing exponentially," he said.
The government hopes the third time is the charm for federal efforts to protect minors from sexually explicit material on the Web.
The court struck down a 1996 law the year after it passed Congress and later stopped its replacement, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, or COPA, from going into effect.
Now the court is taking a second look at whether COPA represents government censorship or the lawful regulation of adult-themed businesses.
The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups immediately filed suit, claiming the law violates the First Amendment by criminalizing free speech.
A federal judge in Philadelphia issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the law from being enforced while the case was under way.
The act, passed by Congress in October 1998 and signed into law by President Clinton, would ban making "any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors."
To deal with First Amendment concerns that the law would be too narrow, the bill's authors defined "harmful material" based on "contemporary community standards."
The bill would prevent commercial content providers from posting free or unrestricted indecent material on the Internet that children could easily access.
Web sites would have to set up credit card verification or age identification checks to ensure children would be restricted from viewing or downloading pornographic material.
Maximum punishments would be six months in jail or $50,000 in fines.
ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson told the court that COPA was a "criminal statute that violates a whole range of protected speech."
She claimed it was an ineffective tool to keep children from objectionable material.
"Although the government claims the censorship law is necessary to protect minors, it has not even used all of the tools currently available to protect them from sexually explicit content," Beeson said.
The ACLU represents online businesses, artists and writers who offer sometimes graphic material, including sexual health information and advice.
Beeson said if a person operates a Web site on improving lovemaking for couples or about the HBO television series "Sex and the City," "You're going to be very worried."
At least one member of the court seemed to offer some support.
"This law seems to me to be very sweeping," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Other justices said the government has some power to limit access to indecent material.
"The way to do it is zoning," said Justice Stephen Breyer, using his term for technological screening tools, or blinders. "Congress says that's the solution. If that's not the solution, what is?"
Both sides agreed children can easily, if unwittingly, get access to smut online. At issue is who should bear the financial and psychological burden of setting up effective barriers: Web companies or parents?
Beeson said costly and time-consuming adults-only requirements would repel consumers and that other services, such as filtering software, are more effective and less intrusive.
Olson argued technologically savvy children can easily get around such devices, which parents can buy and install on their personal computers.
A ruling in the case is expected by late June.
The case is Ashcroft v. ACLU (03-0218)
