- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 14,364
- Reaction score
- 9,117
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Source: Yahoo News
For years, Congress has sought what amounts to a legislative Holy Grail: A law that would protect children from Internet pornography, stay relevant in the face of evolving technology, and not be too much of a restriction for adults who want to exercise their constitutional right to view sexually explicit materials.
On Tuesday, as the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to prevent the enforcement of a 1998 law that limits access to sexual materials on the Web, the justices suggested that Congress' latest attempt to regulate Internet porn might be futile. The debate among the justices suggested that legal protections for free speech could mean that parents, not the U.S. government, will have to be the barriers between youths and online porn. (Related story: Court upholds block of Web porn law)
The court ruled that the government had not shown that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators to post "material that is harmful to minors," was the least restrictive way to keep children from pornography. The law, which requires the operators to use age-verification systems that usually require a credit card number, says violators can be fined up to $50,000 and imprisoned for up to six months.
The court's majority, noting that age-verification systems impose a burden on all of a Web site's users, said that filtering software on home computers might be a better way to keep kids from seeing porn while preserving the rights of adults.
"Filters are less restrictive than COPA," Justice Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites) wrote for the majority. "Under a filtering regime, adults without children may gain access to speech they have a right to see without having to identify themselves or provide their credit card information."
Kennedy said filter technology is improving. But dissenting justices said filters are fallible, can be expensive and depend on parent intervention. "More than 28 million school-age children have both parents or their sole parent in the workforce, at least 5 million children are left alone at home without supervision each week, and many ... (have) friends who may well have access to computers and more lenient parents," Justice Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) said in dissent. He estimated that filtering software costs $40.
As the challenge to COPA that was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and several online publishers heads back to lower courts, the debate among the justices shows the difficulty of regulating the Internet - and the likelihood that the 1998 law might never be enforced.
Kennedy said the court presumes that any government effort to limit explicit materials on the Web is unconstitutional. "Content-based prohibitions ... have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people," he said. "To guard against that threat the Constitution demands that ... government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality. This is true even when Congress twice has attempted to find a constitutional means to restrict, and punish, the speech in question."
COPA followed the Communications Decency Act, which Congress passed in 1996 to make it a crime to send obscene or indecent messages to minors via e-mails, chat-room messages and Web sites. The justices struck down the law in 1997, saying it was too vague and broad. Congress then passed COPA, which targets commercial Web sites. (A 1996 law that banned computer-generated "virtual" child porn was rejected by the court in 2002. The justices said it could have banned works of art.)
Tuesday's decision was the second time the court had examined COPA. In 2002, the justices ruled on a narrow question, saying that courts can use "community standards" to identify material harmful to minors.
On Tuesday, the justices affirmed a lower court's order that blocked enforcement of COPA on grounds that it likely is unconstitutional. The case now goes to a trial court judge, who would hear the government's claim that COPA is the least restrictive way to protect children and that filters are not a sufficient alternative.
"We are very confident that the (trial) court would strike (COPA) down," ACLU attorney Ann Beeson said. "Just as with TV and movies, parents should set limits on what children will see." She questioned whether the government will continue to seek to have the law enforced.
Justice Department (news - web sites) spokesman Mark Corallo said the department "will continue to work to defend children from the dangerous predators who lurk" on the Web.
Reaction from Congress was mixed. Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., said he was "stunned the high court, once again, sided with pornographers over children."
But Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., who opposes COPA, said Congress should seek "solutions that do not just lull parents into a false sense of security ... but that can withstand the test of time and the scrutiny of the courts."
--------------
I am mixed on this. I agree something needs to be done.
First amendment all the way, but the solution they have come up with will not solve the problem. Porn is available everywhere. Email, Newsgroups, web of course...
For years, Congress has sought what amounts to a legislative Holy Grail: A law that would protect children from Internet pornography, stay relevant in the face of evolving technology, and not be too much of a restriction for adults who want to exercise their constitutional right to view sexually explicit materials.
On Tuesday, as the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to prevent the enforcement of a 1998 law that limits access to sexual materials on the Web, the justices suggested that Congress' latest attempt to regulate Internet porn might be futile. The debate among the justices suggested that legal protections for free speech could mean that parents, not the U.S. government, will have to be the barriers between youths and online porn. (Related story: Court upholds block of Web porn law)
The court ruled that the government had not shown that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators to post "material that is harmful to minors," was the least restrictive way to keep children from pornography. The law, which requires the operators to use age-verification systems that usually require a credit card number, says violators can be fined up to $50,000 and imprisoned for up to six months.
The court's majority, noting that age-verification systems impose a burden on all of a Web site's users, said that filtering software on home computers might be a better way to keep kids from seeing porn while preserving the rights of adults.
"Filters are less restrictive than COPA," Justice Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites) wrote for the majority. "Under a filtering regime, adults without children may gain access to speech they have a right to see without having to identify themselves or provide their credit card information."
Kennedy said filter technology is improving. But dissenting justices said filters are fallible, can be expensive and depend on parent intervention. "More than 28 million school-age children have both parents or their sole parent in the workforce, at least 5 million children are left alone at home without supervision each week, and many ... (have) friends who may well have access to computers and more lenient parents," Justice Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) said in dissent. He estimated that filtering software costs $40.
As the challenge to COPA that was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and several online publishers heads back to lower courts, the debate among the justices shows the difficulty of regulating the Internet - and the likelihood that the 1998 law might never be enforced.
Kennedy said the court presumes that any government effort to limit explicit materials on the Web is unconstitutional. "Content-based prohibitions ... have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people," he said. "To guard against that threat the Constitution demands that ... government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality. This is true even when Congress twice has attempted to find a constitutional means to restrict, and punish, the speech in question."
COPA followed the Communications Decency Act, which Congress passed in 1996 to make it a crime to send obscene or indecent messages to minors via e-mails, chat-room messages and Web sites. The justices struck down the law in 1997, saying it was too vague and broad. Congress then passed COPA, which targets commercial Web sites. (A 1996 law that banned computer-generated "virtual" child porn was rejected by the court in 2002. The justices said it could have banned works of art.)
Tuesday's decision was the second time the court had examined COPA. In 2002, the justices ruled on a narrow question, saying that courts can use "community standards" to identify material harmful to minors.
On Tuesday, the justices affirmed a lower court's order that blocked enforcement of COPA on grounds that it likely is unconstitutional. The case now goes to a trial court judge, who would hear the government's claim that COPA is the least restrictive way to protect children and that filters are not a sufficient alternative.
"We are very confident that the (trial) court would strike (COPA) down," ACLU attorney Ann Beeson said. "Just as with TV and movies, parents should set limits on what children will see." She questioned whether the government will continue to seek to have the law enforced.
Justice Department (news - web sites) spokesman Mark Corallo said the department "will continue to work to defend children from the dangerous predators who lurk" on the Web.
Reaction from Congress was mixed. Rep. Mark Foley (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., said he was "stunned the high court, once again, sided with pornographers over children."
But Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., who opposes COPA, said Congress should seek "solutions that do not just lull parents into a false sense of security ... but that can withstand the test of time and the scrutiny of the courts."
--------------
I am mixed on this. I agree something needs to be done.
First amendment all the way, but the solution they have come up with will not solve the problem. Porn is available everywhere. Email, Newsgroups, web of course...
