StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Washington Post wrote:By David B. Caruso
The Associated Press
Friday, March 7, 2003; 3:16 AM


A federal appeals court has ruled that a law meant to safeguard children against Internet pornography is riddled with problems that make it "constitutionally infirm."

A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Child Online Protection Act restricted free speech by barring Web page operators from posting information inappropriate for minors unless they limited the site to adults. The ruling upheld an injunction blocking the government from enforcing the law.

The court said that in practice, the law made it too difficult for adults to view material protected by the First Amendment, including many non-pornographic sites.

The law, signed by President Clinton and endorsed by President Bush, has never been enforced. It is one of several relating to Internet decency that courts have struck down.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which initiated the legal challenge, praised Thursday's ruling.

"It's clear that the law would make it a crime to communicate a whole range of information to adults," said ACLU associate legal director Ann Beeson.

Calls to the Justice Department, which had argued in favor of the law, were not immediately returned. The government may ask the 3rd Circuit to rehear the case or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Previously, the 3rd Circuit had ruled the law unconstitutional on grounds that it allowed the legality of Internet content to be judged by "contemporary community standards."

On appeal, the Supreme Court said that evaluation standard alone did not make the law unconstitutional, and sent the case back for further evaluation.

In Thursday's opinion, the court said that in seeking to define material harmful to minors, the law made no distinction between things inappropriate for a 5-year-old and things harmful to someone in their early teens.

The judges said that while the law sought to get around free-speech arguments by making the restrictions apply only to Web operators who posted material for "commercial purposes," it didn't address what level of profitability was required.

The court also said screening methods suggested by the government, including requiring Web-page viewers to give a credit card number, would unfairly require adults to identify themselves before viewing constitutionally protected material such as medical sites offering sex advice.

Darth Wong wrote:The courts have been smacking this piece of shit down for years, and the right-wing keeps propping it back up.

Darth Wong wrote:The courts have been smacking this piece of shit down for years, and the right-wing keeps propping it back up.

Darth Wong wrote:The courts have been smacking this piece of shit down for years, and the right-wing keeps propping it back up.

Pablo Sanchez wrote:We can go farther with this! Let's put similar limits on the publication of maps of major cities, textbooks for structural engineers, and all medical textbooks. After all, such things might be used by TERRORISTS!

Gandalf wrote:How is a law like this going to help anyway?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:The courts have been smacking this piece of shit down for years, and the right-wing keeps propping it back up.

Social Conservatives, Mike. Elements of the Right like the Cato Institute oppose this stuff just as firmly as the Left does.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I have something to say to whover supported that bill: I know something to block children from sites some may deem innapropriate for them. It's called "Parents"!

Captain Jack wrote:

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I have something to say to whover supported that bill: I know something to block children from sites some may deem innapropriate for them. It's called "Parents"!

Barbed wire works.

Gandalf wrote:Or we could just rig computers to explode when they detect porn.

Crayz9000 wrote:

Gandalf wrote:Or we could just rig computers to explode when they detect porn.

That's a bit harsh. A program that would make the computer bluescreen every time porn was found would work far better.

RogueIce wrote:

Crayz9000 wrote:

Gandalf wrote:Or we could just rig computers to explode when they detect porn.

That's a bit harsh. A program that would make the computer bluescreen every time porn was found would work far better.

Bluescreen? That's just obscene!

And as for you, Gandalf...do you really WANT to wipe out 95% of SD.Net's users?

Enforcer Talen wrote:bwhahaha. I will outsurvive you all.

Enforcer Talen wrote:bwhahaha. I will outsurvive you all.

Enforcer Talen wrote:. . .damn!

but I'd outpost you all in the 3 days I had!

RogueIce wrote:

Enforcer Talen wrote:. . .damn!

but I'd outpost you all in the 3 days I had!

Not if there was still at least one mod around who doesn't like porn...

Though if there are, they should be promptly dismissed from their position, and a proper porn-loving individual put in their place.

Gandalf wrote:

RogueIce wrote:Not if there was still at least one mod around who doesn't like porn...

Though if there are, they should be promptly dismissed from their position, and a proper porn-loving individual put in their place.

There goes my hope of mod-dom.