Internet Protection Law Unconstitutional

(AP)  A federal appeals court Tuesday agreed with a lower court ruling that struck down as unconstitutional a 1998 law intended to protect children from sexual material and other objectionable content on the Internet.

The decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia is the latest twist in a decade-long legal battle over the Child Online Protection Act. The fight has already reached the Supreme Court and could be headed back there.

The law, which has not taken effect, would bar Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet. The act was passed the year after the Supreme Court ruled that another law intended to protect children from explicit material online - the Communications Decency Act - was unconstitutional in the landmark case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU challenged the 1998 law on behalf of a coalition of writers, artists, health educators and the publisher Salon Media Group.

ACLU attorney Chris Hansen argued that Congress has been trying to restrict speech on the Internet far more than it can restrict speech in books and magazines. But, he said, "the rules should be the same."

Indeed, the Child Online Protection Act would effectively force all Web sites to provide only family-friendly content because it is not feasible to lock children out of sites that are lawful for adults, said John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law.

In its ruling Tuesday, the federal appeals court concluded that the Child Online Protection Act is unconstitutionally overly broad and vague. The court also ruled that the law violates the First Amendment because filtering technologies and other parental control tools offer a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online.

Morris argued that filters also provide a more effective way to protect children since they can block objectionable Web sites that are based overseas, beyond the reach of U.S. law.

For its part, the Justice Department said it will review the ruling before deciding its next step.

"We are disappointed that the court of appeals struck down a congressional statute designed to protect our children from exposure to sexually explicit materials on the Internet," said department spokesman Charles Miller.

If the case ends up before the Supreme Court, it would not be the first time that the justices have considered the Child Online Protection Act. In 2004, the high court upheld a ruling that the law violates the First Amendment. But the Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court to determine whether any changes in blocking software would affect the law's constitutionality.

[rf35]

Worse, how many parents have time TO parent? Both having to scrounge enough money to survive...
Posted by hypnotoad72

Well Sparky, YA SHOULD HAVE KEPT IT IN YOUR PANTS!! Don''t blame the Internet for your desire to overpopulate the Earth. If you don''t have the time or money to raise a kid or kids, then don''t breed!
All this law would do is penalize American web sites and cause them to move outside the country (along with their jobs and revenue).
OldThought, a porn bomb? Sounds like you got some problems, friend. I agree that such tactics are abhorrent, but in over 12 years of being on-line, I''ve never encountered anything like you described. Maybe because I always use a virus scanning program that actively checks websites as they come through. A combination of good on-line security practices, filter software, and vigilance are what is needed. If that isn''t enough, then maybe you don''t need to own a computer.

[mrvolleyba11]

whay about the millions of people with NO KIDS who don''t want the govornment involved in every faucet of their lives??? if every ISP blocked content to "protect" children then it effects those that don''t even have any kids! ...and if your follish enough to think blocking their internet activity will keep smut out of their hands your a fool! in this digital age teenagers are copying disks of friends or somebody they know and it goes around and around! ...and don''t forget about the USNET; you can get anything digital (porn, movies, music, apps, etc, etc) from the USNET (Newgroups) and filesharing programs!
An internet filter is only a drop in the bucket with all the options these kids have to get this stuff!

[Netterz]

One thing that should be addressed, which I haven''t seen yet, is when these creeps manage to infiltrate onto sites via porn bots in disguise, *** hidden in email, porn bombs, or email bombs that have nothing in the subject line hinting at what ugliness lies inside the click, and coming from some one you, who has already suffered the same fate, because the worms pick up every one else''s email address. Even if you are standing over kids shoulders the entire time, these creeps can manage to splash your screen with some of the most disgusting things well past most peoples imaginations. I think, if people choose to look at those sorts of things, then they can look. But trying to force it on everyone, from age 2 to 102, is WRONG. When my mother first attempted to learn to use a computer, using A0L many yrs ago, About 2 weeks into her self teaching, and starting to receive email, she received a porn bomb, where 100''s of porn pages took over her computer, the browser, and had an auto dialer, that made it so she could no longer even dial into her own internet service. THAT is WRONG. Anyone who think that is fine and everyone should be subjected to that, and by stopping it, is any sort of a constitutional violation, is WRONG TOO. How would you feel, if all the sudden, this took over your television, or if everytime you picked up your phone, some one was screaming sexually inappropriate things at you, would that still be ok? I don''t think so.

[eddom949]

It''s a technological problem, so a technological solution would be wise. Flesh tones? Cyclical redundancy? These indicate porn (among others). We''ve endured an assault on free speech, on one forum I personally was banned, citing ''antics.''

[hypnotoad72]

...
Posted by O2bRich at 12:15 PM : Jul 23, 2008

-------------------

Spot on analysis - thank you for posting!

[hypnotoad72]

Unconstutional..no way it has notthing to do with the contution. We are talking about porn and yes it is trash, and so them nasty sites should have a means to be flagged.

Posted by BarbaraM99
---------------------

I am compelled to agree. Sites should be flagged, and people who own computers should have internet security software on their PCs to prevent what they don''t want. Any parent who freely lets children look at or engage in uncouth material should not be a parent, IMHO. There are legitimate reasons for age limits, and at some point they ought to be obeyed. (Didn''t PG13 get created because "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" was deemed too vulgar and graphic for children? So what do they do; target filth at younger people and find ways to lower the bar. That too is depraved.)

I myself don''t like violent video games, excessively vulgar tv, et al, but if people took the time to raise kids properly, instead of letting them use that garbage as virtual nannies, we''d all be better off. It gets tiring when some punk brat plays chicken on the freeway because he thinks it''s just as okay as doing it in GTA3...

Worse, how many parents have time TO parent? Both having to scrounge enough money to survive (that''s a blanket statement and not entirely fair nor completely accurate) so the kids often have no choice but to turn to Maury or Jerry as surrogate dads. Ewww.

[oisaac]

All browsers have ways of limiting activity. My 11 year old son cannot go to a single website unless I approve it beforehand. This includes links from other sites, they simply are blocked. Over time, he has more and more than I open up, but it is not a free for all.

This is a small price to pay. I know absolutely what he is looking at, what he is reading and what he is doing and saying. For those out there that want to limit the internet, try parenting instead.

[actornaught]

Whatever happened to parental involvement?...
Posted by emilymhanson at 11:35 AM : Jul 23, 2008

So we should allow kids with poor parents to be victims?

[o2brich]

I see these comments about government inflicting its morals on the public or the need for more parental involvement (implying there is none) instead of censorship but I think such folks miss the boat. As a parent I would just like some help keeping this growing tide of filth and sleaze out of my house. I love the Internet but I hate all the trash it can bring into my home. I''m not advocating that anyone be banned from making pornography, I just want a little help keeping my kids or from being exposes to the stuff. Yes, there are still people out there that don%u2019t want to be involved with pornography. I hate being on the defensive all the time. It used to be that it was easy to keep pornography out of your house if you didn''t want it there. But those who peddle this filth on the internet are so intrusive that it%u2019s nearly impossible to avoid it, even with close parental supervision. I am continually appalled at the gall and audacity that people have to think its okay to push this stuff to my computer so that I have to have anti virus, anti-pop-up, anti-ad ware software, a fire wall and so on and so on. And I might also add that in providing close parental supervision it%u2019s extremely difficult to avoid being exposed to it myself. I don''t like that. So when I speak in favor of requirements, regulations and laws that will make it easier for me to keep this sort of stuff out of my house, I''m just looking for some help. I%u2019m not trying to take away anyone%u2019s rights.

[emilymhanson]

Whatever happened to parental involvement? Computers and TVs are NOT babysitters and should not be used as such. Parents have the responsibility to keep tabs on what their kids are doing. I agree with another commmenter -- don''t let a box raise your kids.