Judge Puts Porn Access Burden On Parents

Tosses 1998 Federal Law That Put Onus On Web Site Operators To Keep Kids Away

(CBS/AP)  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.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. said the law is too broad, snagging and violating First and Fifth Amendment rights, "notwithstanding the compelling interest of Congress in protecting children from sexually explicit material," reports CBS News correspondent Barry Bagnato.

"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," Reed, who presided over a four-week trial last fall.

The judge said he yearns for a solution to this problem, but added, "I may not turn a blind eye to the law."

"I think the judge gets it that the law would have had a chilling effect on free speech of adults while not really protecting children," says CBSNews.com technology analyst Larry Magid. "This law could have shut down sites that are not only legal, but potentially beneficial, such as sites that promote sexual health."

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.

"This ruling is just the latest in a long string of judicial defeats for this law and hopefully the decision helps convince Congress and the Justice Department that it needs a fresh, new, legal and practical approach to blocking children from online pornography," says CBSNews.com legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "This ill-fated legislation just doesn't allow technology and the law to synch up and that's why it keeps losing in court."

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 best way to keep kids safe is for parents to closely monitor their Internet activity and teach them, over time, to use the net responsibly," says Magid, who was an expert witness for the ACLU. "Besides, the biggest threat today isn't so much what kids see online but what they say."

[klingon69]

Maybe both parents wouldn't have to work, if more of the layabouts who won't work would get a job. In order to pay for our bills and for those who CAN'T afford bills, both parents have to work. Usually it is the liberal schools that get to be babysitter, but with so many parents opting to home-school, it becomes a problem.

[silver9991]

DefndLiberty, thanks for the quotes, and the clear eye.

[gaye5]

And as far as the Civil Liberties are concerned, they seem to be more for criminals than the victims.

bellaL, you said, With as much sexual crime as we have in our society you'd think the courts would be more supportive of limiting children's exposure to porn. Porn is becoming more violent and degrading and kids are being exposed to it at younger ages. We have no idea how this will affect society in a generation.

You are dead right, and with sexual crimes on the increase you would think that courts would be more supportive of limiting even adults exposure... if we can save just one child from being killed by limiting these, then we have succeeded...
If people want to see such things then it should be an opt in, not a right to see such things,, this way we can keep tags on those who want to watch kiddie porn or porn...
I am horrified at the number of sexual crimes now, and am wondering if people will ever wonder as to why... I believe that there are a few reasons, so we have to start somewhere...

[gaye5]

The article above said.....A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to government efforts to control Internet pornography.

One would have to wonder about the morality of this Judge. Tooooooo many judges give such light sentences on these animals, and if Judges cant see how wrong it is and that it destroys a child for life and her/his family, then he needs to be investigated re his morals and some of his contacts???? I find judges like this very sus.. he more than the ordinary person will know that there are an ever growing number of bad parents, and because of this children need protection.... one wonders why he isnt willing to give it..
the government force parents to immunize their children, to wear helmets on bikes, to do up seat belts in cars etc, and then they say that it is not the governments job to control Internet pornograph, come on???? I am very sus here...

I was once told that there are police, judges and politicians high up in the pedophile rings... and this makes one wonder if it is in fact true..

[bellal-2009]

bellaL - sounds to me like you just verified what I said - the library computers are filtered. Now, if the parent chooses to sign the consent form - that is their choice.


Earth to Susan, the parents cannot read or write English. They don't know what they're signing. It's real world.

[silver9991]

This judge made the wise decision. Kudos.

[sclaires]

Children in this day and age know more about *** then I did when I became an adult. They learn it at school in *** education classes and also from other students. Yes, children should be protected from pronographic sites but it should be up to the parents to set the limits as to where they can go on the internet and not the government. The parent can set the home computer to filter out what they deem is harmful and not allow their children to access those sites. The schools and libraries already have filtering software on them so that should not be a concern. The parents should be raising the children and not the government.

[bellal-2009]

Susan why are you so intent on protecting pornographers who make a fortune at the expense of society. They have virtually no regulation or special taxes in fact most of what they do is taxfree. Why do you support these people Susan?

[susanhelit]

bellaL - sounds to me like you just verified what I said - the library computers are filtered. Now, if the parent chooses to sign the consent form - that is their choice.

Did you read the opinion piece on this? Porn can be a bit hard to pick out - and even harder to pick out 'adult material'. Websites that have health information dealing with *** were concerned, any controversial material, etc. Not to mention the sites helping people with sensitive topics, who need anonymity. And verification with a credit card is absolutely trivial for most kids to accomplish - some have their own, others can simply pick up a charge slip.

[bellal-2009]

With as much sexual crime as we have in our society you'd think the courts would be more supportive of limiting children's exposure to porn. Porn is becoming more violent and degrading and kids are being exposed to it at younger ages. We have no idea how this will affect society in a generation.

[bellal-2009]

Internet computers in the library do have filters - at least where I live, and they're supposed to everywhere.
Posted by SusanHelit at 05:07 PM : Mar 22, 2007

No they don't. They have childrens computers which blocks EVERYTHING so kids can't even visit the sites needed for homework then the others require a consent form which doesn't block ANYTHING. You'd be surprised Susan, visit a public library some afternoon.

[bellal-2009]

but can't I at least expect the government to be SOMEWHAT on my side instead of the side of the porn industry?Posted by HawkSprings at 05:39 PM : Mar 22, 2007


I agree with you HawkSprings, you'd think it was a conspiracy against parents. Time and time again the courts rule against parents. I can't believe how hard it's become to protect kids from our society. Is this really what we want.

[rohink-2009]

What the heckk does that mean? Typical ACLU crapp gobbledegook.


Posted by HawkSprings

What they might say?
Yeah, I'd like to know what she meant by that. What words are more dangerous? But in this Politically correct world we live in, nothing surprises me anymore. Words are actually being banned.

[hawksprings]

...says Magid, who was an expert witness for the ACLU. "Besides, the biggest threat today isn't so much what kids see online but what they say."

What the heckk does that mean? Typical ACLU crapp gobbledegook.

[bigv11]

Come on ...what % of kids are going to see it now. IT should be completly blocked and out lawed.
Do we really need this type of filth.

[susanhelit]

Internet computers in the library do have filters - at least where I live, and they're supposed to everywhere.

[susanhelit]

The government helps parents where practical - but I think some parents on here need to realize that when they give their child access to the Internet, they're basicly driving them to some retail district, opening the car door, and leaving them to wander wherever they like. Maybe into the toy store (where there might be a strange guy offering candy), or maybe into a porn shop.

You wouldn't let your child wander in the physical world alone and unprotected - you shouldn't do it online either. And since our laws do not apply to web sites hosted elsewhere, any law made here doesn't really do much at all. You need to be the gateway, determine what should and should not get through. A web site trying to fake you out, trying to get porn through screening software - that I could see making illegal - but to say that any web site that isn't strictly G rated must put some kind of block to keep kids out - nope, that's not reasonable.

[hawksprings]

"You - not the government, not other people - are responsible for your child. End of story."
Posted by jimibear

Jimibear, I know I'm responsible for my children, but can't I at least expect the government to be SOMEWHAT on my side instead of the side of the porn industry?

Whatever happened to Hillary's "It takes a village"? Shouldn't the Dembots be helping parents a little?

This judge's decision is wrong-headed. We have all kinds of laws restricting porn in the "real" world, there's NO REASON we shouldn't have the same kinds of laws and safeguards on the internet.

Don't tell me I'm responsible for my kids while you allow porn perverts with no conscience to throw smut at them with no restraint.

...

[rohink-2009]

Some internet porn weirdos use expired web addresses from legitimate sites so they can snag people who aren't even searching for porn.
Posted by HawkSprings at 12:11 PM : Mar 22, 2007

I was on E-bay not too long ago searching in mens clothing. I clicked on pants and the first item up for sale was a woman giving some guy a bj. It's everywhere. Parents don't have it so easy

[rohink-2009]

I agree that parents should "parent" their children. They are their responsibility, but, I have a couple of questions. Why all the outrage over government controlling whether or not you can access porn easily on your computer but no outrage when they ban foods that they say are bad for you? Why do they say it is parents responsibility to parent their children, yet, they pass laws taking that responsibility away? Why do you let schools decide that parents rights end once their child enters the school. Why do children have to have a permission slip from their parents to take a tylenol, yet they can have an abortion, which is surgery without a parental consent?