Court affirms online content law unconstitutional

[SmokeyTheBear]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080722/...ernet_blocking

WASHINGTON - 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.

[SmokeyTheBear]

"The law, which has not taken effect, would bar Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet."

lol how can you take the internet out of the internet anyways.

[Babaganoosh]

The ACLU's attorney involved in this case is Chris Hansen?

That's quite a coincidence.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by Babaganoosh

The ACLU's attorney involved in this case is Chris Hansen?

That's quite a coincidence.

lol how did i miss that , coulda made a great headline

[the content guy]

Originally Posted by Babaganoosh

The ACLU's attorney involved in this case is Chris Hansen?

That's quite a coincidence.

LOL, was just gonna say, how ironic is that?

[SmokeyTheBear]

Chris hansens secret fight against child protection.

[TheJimmy]

interesting

.

[Iron Fist]

We need a pedobear in this thread...

[SmokeyTheBear]

bump 4 reposts

[starpimps]

what are the odds chris hansen lol

[DWB]

Good to see this thread has less views than the "hint" or "I saw gas today for $3.78" threads.

Gotta love the dip shits in this industry who don't give a shit, yet cry like babies like the shy is falling when they hear about anything law related.

Thanks for the info Smokey.

[Paul Markham]

The problem is the politicians will not site down with the industry and work out something that will work. They do this to get publicity so in an election they can say they did their part and the bad boys at the ACLU took it down and it's someone else's fault.

Try protecting children from guns and see how far that gets. How many children die from guns and how many jerk off to death?

[czarina]

Originally Posted by DirtyWhiteBoy

Good to see this thread has less views than the "hint" or "I saw gas today for $3.78" threads.

Gotta love the dip shits in this industry who don't give a shit, yet cry like babies like the shy is falling when they hear about anything law related.

Thanks for the info Smokey.

sad, sad indeed that people in this industry are less interested in protecting themselves than in saving a few pennies at the pump

[ADL Eddie]