mrg666
03-22-2007, 07:13 PM
A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down a 1998 law today that made it a crime for Web sites to allow children to access material deemed “harmful.”
The ruling, which will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, represents a second major setback in federal efforts to control Internet pornography, after a similar law was struck down by the high court in 1997.
Senior Judge Lowell Reed Jr. of the Federal District Court ruled that the law was ineffective, overly broad and at odds with free speech rights. He added that there are far less restrictive methods, including software filters, that parents can use to control their children’s Internet use.
“Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect our children from harmful material,” Judge Reed wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that “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.”
The law never took effect because of an injunction, which was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 2004.
Civil libertarians applauded Judge Reed’s decision as a victory for free speech and creativity on the Internet.
“If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into dumbing down of the Internet,” said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. “All Internet would have had to be brought down to a level that is acceptable to a 6-year-old and that would have had a devastating effect on the kind of interactions that take place on the Internet.”
But others were disappointed.
“It’s a very frustrating decision. We have an epidemic problem of kids accessing pornographic material online,” said Donna Rice Hughes, president of Enough is Enough, a nonprofit group that works to protect children from pornography and online predators. “Pornographers continue to get a free pass on the Internet from our federal courts, and efforts by Congress keep getting trumped.”
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the United States attorney’s office, said the department was reviewing the 84-page opinion and deciding whether to appeal.
Under the law, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, commercial Web publishers would have been required to request credit card information or other proof of age from Web site users to prevent children from viewing material deemed “harmful to minors” by “contemporary community standards.” Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
Congress first tried to regulate online pornography in 1996 with the Communications Decency Act, but that law that was struck down by the Supreme Court the following year. In drafting the 1998 law, which was signed by President Bill Clinton, lawmakers hoped to pass constitutional muster, narrowing its aim by focusing on commercial Web sites and defining objectionable material as obscene or that which offends “contemporary community standards.”
In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries receiving certain federal money to use software filters. The high court upheld that law in 2003.
Lawrence Lessig, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University, said the case decided today indicates the shifting stances that civil libertarians have taken regarding controls placed on the Internet.
“Civil libertarians have long had a ‘love-hate’ relationship with filters,” he said, adding that while the A.C.L.U. argued in this case that filters are preferable, the organization has also voiced concerns about them.
“People buy filters worried about pornography, but then they see they can also block sports, politics and lots of other things, so they block those, too,” Professor Lessig said. “The result is to reinforce this infrastructure of filters.” That, he said, may lead to “less free speech than we would have if the government could only get it right in their approach to limiting pornography.”
Mr. Hansen said that his organization has only opposed the mandatory use of filters, not filters themselves.
In arguing on behalf of the 2000 law, Justice Department lawyers defended the use of filters. But in the case decided by Judge Reed, who was appointed to the federal bench in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan, Justice Department lawyers highlighted the inadequacies of filters.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law would have a chilling effect on free speech.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/us/22cnd-porn.html?hp
The ruling, which will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, represents a second major setback in federal efforts to control Internet pornography, after a similar law was struck down by the high court in 1997.
Senior Judge Lowell Reed Jr. of the Federal District Court ruled that the law was ineffective, overly broad and at odds with free speech rights. He added that there are far less restrictive methods, including software filters, that parents can use to control their children’s Internet use.
“Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect our children from harmful material,” Judge Reed wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that “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.”
The law never took effect because of an injunction, which was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 2004.
Civil libertarians applauded Judge Reed’s decision as a victory for free speech and creativity on the Internet.
“If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into dumbing down of the Internet,” said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. “All Internet would have had to be brought down to a level that is acceptable to a 6-year-old and that would have had a devastating effect on the kind of interactions that take place on the Internet.”
But others were disappointed.
“It’s a very frustrating decision. We have an epidemic problem of kids accessing pornographic material online,” said Donna Rice Hughes, president of Enough is Enough, a nonprofit group that works to protect children from pornography and online predators. “Pornographers continue to get a free pass on the Internet from our federal courts, and efforts by Congress keep getting trumped.”
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the United States attorney’s office, said the department was reviewing the 84-page opinion and deciding whether to appeal.
Under the law, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, commercial Web publishers would have been required to request credit card information or other proof of age from Web site users to prevent children from viewing material deemed “harmful to minors” by “contemporary community standards.” Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
Congress first tried to regulate online pornography in 1996 with the Communications Decency Act, but that law that was struck down by the Supreme Court the following year. In drafting the 1998 law, which was signed by President Bill Clinton, lawmakers hoped to pass constitutional muster, narrowing its aim by focusing on commercial Web sites and defining objectionable material as obscene or that which offends “contemporary community standards.”
In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries receiving certain federal money to use software filters. The high court upheld that law in 2003.
Lawrence Lessig, a constitutional law professor at Stanford University, said the case decided today indicates the shifting stances that civil libertarians have taken regarding controls placed on the Internet.
“Civil libertarians have long had a ‘love-hate’ relationship with filters,” he said, adding that while the A.C.L.U. argued in this case that filters are preferable, the organization has also voiced concerns about them.
“People buy filters worried about pornography, but then they see they can also block sports, politics and lots of other things, so they block those, too,” Professor Lessig said. “The result is to reinforce this infrastructure of filters.” That, he said, may lead to “less free speech than we would have if the government could only get it right in their approach to limiting pornography.”
Mr. Hansen said that his organization has only opposed the mandatory use of filters, not filters themselves.
In arguing on behalf of the 2000 law, Justice Department lawyers defended the use of filters. But in the case decided by Judge Reed, who was appointed to the federal bench in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan, Justice Department lawyers highlighted the inadequacies of filters.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law would have a chilling effect on free speech.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/us/22cnd-porn.html?hp