U.S. Judge Blocks 1998 Online Porn Law

[Jim]

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.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[JustRobert]

Thanks for the link, Jim. Finally a judge with a bit more common sense.

We as parents are suppose to protect our children not the government, thats my opinion.

Wife and I never allowed our kids online unless we were in the living room where the family computer was. We learned this when we first got our computer online(7 yrs ago) and went to search for the cartoon show Super Chicken and came across a multitude of porn pages. LOL

[Phoenix]

its about time...barney isnt online watching where kids surf...seems like parents these days are kinda lazy

[Toby]

This has huge ramifications as a precident in other cases. A BIG win for good guys! I hope the legal braintrust at FSC are paying attention.

[Jim]

They only touch on what happened in 96.

"The 1998 law followed Congress' unsuccessful 1996 effort to ban online pornography. The Supreme Court in 1997 deemed key portions of that law unconstitutional because it was too vague and trampled on adults' rights"

After that law passed, it was a very dark time. When the Supreme Court did what was right, you could feel a collective sigh from webmasters and surfers alike. Probably going through is the reason I don't worry about the small stuff. They mention the $50k fine but it was $50k all around. If someone entered an adult site from a library, the webmaster would be fined. The host would be fined. And even the library would be fined. All at the $50k price tag.

[sabin]

Common sense in the government? We got 2 weeks until April 1st...

[tickler]

Being an analyst, I really like these two parts.

- To defend the nine-year-old Child Online Protection Act, government lawyers attacked software filters as burdensome and less effective

- In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries to use software filters if they receive certain federal funds

[Bill]

I liked what the judge said - a federal judge with some sense-

"“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,” Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall, wrote in the decision today, The Associated Press reported."

What the FREE SPEECH COALITION rep said was cool too...


From the NYT:


A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down a 1998 law today that made it a crime for commercial Web site operators to allow children under 17 to gain access to “harmful” material.

In the ruling, the judge said that software filters installed on home computers, and other less restrictive means, were a better way to protect children than laws that limit free speech.

“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,” Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall, wrote in the decision today, The Associated Press reported.

Under the 1998 law, called the Child Online Protection Act, it was a crime for a Web site to allow access to material that was deemed harmful under “contemporary community standards” without first requiring some proof of age, such as a valid credit card. Penalties under the law ranged up to a $50,000 fine and six months in prison for each violation.

The law was challenged by operators of web sites about reproductive health, by the online magazine Salon, and by other sites with the support of the American Civil Liberties Union. They argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague, and obtained a temporary injunction to keep it from being enforced while the challenge was pending. The Supreme Court upheld that temporary injunction in 2004 on the ground that the law was likely to be struck down at trial. Charles Miller, a spokesman for the United States Department of Justice, said today that the department is reviewing the decision, and is not ready to say what steps it intends to take next.

Diane Duke, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, an adult entertainment trade group, applauded the decision.

“Predators are the real danger to children, and the adult entertainment community supports prosecution of people who are targeting children,” she said.

Ms. Duke said that many of her group’s 3,200 members, each of whom may have scores or hundreds of separate web sites, add tags to their sites to make sure that filtering software can block them. She said the group is now studying how many sites do so.

“We don’t intend for children to access this material,” she said. “We intend for this to be viewed by adults. It’s for adults, by adults.”

Technology experts told The A.P. that parents now have more serious concerns about the Web than pornography — for example, the use by online predators of social-networking sites like News Corporation’s MySpace site.

In their defense of the 1998 law, government lawyers took issue with software filters as burdensome and less effective than a criminal statute, though the government has successfully defended a 2000 law requiring the use of filters in schools and libraries that receive federal money.

“It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government’s addressing the problem at its source,” a government lawyer, Peter D. Keisler, argued in a post-trial brief.

The law applied only to content hosted in the United States One of the arguments made by the law’s challengers was that fear of prosecution would simply lead Web site operators to move overseas, beyond its reach.

Congress tried without success in 1996 to ban online pornography outright, but that law, too, failed to stand up to a legal challenge that it was too vague and conflicted with adults’ free-speech rights. The Supreme Court overturned that law in 1997.

[Linkster]

The good part about this is that given that the government will take this to the supreme court next - I coubt seriously that they will even bother to hear it after the laws they struck down that are basically the same thing

Of course being a businessman at heart - or maybe this should be a separate thread? Where does this leave the AVS systems? Are they now no longer a viable entity?

[SheepGuy]

Originally Posted by Linkster

The good part about this is that given that the government will take this to the supreme court next - I coubt seriously that they will even bother to hear it after the laws they struck down that are basically the same thing

Of course being a businessman at heart - or maybe this should be a separate thread? Where does this leave the AVS systems? Are they now no longer a viable entity?

Yeah, they're still viable, most of them don't even call themselves AVS's anymore and market themselves to the public more like paysites. If you see the teaser pages on most AVS sites they are full of wide open beavers, cumshots and such.
I doubt many memberships were ever sold to folks who figured they were doing the right thing by protecting kids from porn, and anyone who marketed them like that is likely long gone from the biz

[JustRobert]

I saw a couple other threads about this earlier today that I no longer can find, stuck at a job and did not bring my laptop, that for the most part sided with its the parents job to filter their system according to their own guidelines.

One analogy was that the internet is the super highway to the world so would you give them the keys to your car and let your child drive anywhere they want.

I told this one to my buddy few months back. You will not let your daughter date yet but you allow her to go online in her room with the door closed and no filtering system because you "believe" you can trust her. All children will push limits just for the sake of doing so, even the really good ones. This thought process, for whatever reason, did not cross his mind.

[jackbdirty]

JustRobert,

That is a damn good point Of what you said to your friend. Really good point. There are parents all the time letting their kids just go in their room with no supervision whatsoever...and we think that they are no going to push the limit. I caught my 12 year old son the other day chatting with 18 yr old girls. (that damn stud..lol.) Just kiddin', but the point is, he's underage and don't need to be talking to older girls like that, and same goes for my daughter. Needless to say, I had to take the computer privelages away from him for awhile.

[JustRobert]

jackbdirty

Another concern is not just the computers in your home but what privileges their friends have with theirs.

I have an absolute horror story with my own daughter 3 yrs ago because of this. Even though you talk to them, show them reports and news stories sometimes they believe they just know more than you and that you do not understand.

She met a guy online, on a friends computer, set up a meeting with him, had him meet her while she was babysitting. Guy drove 2 hrs to meet her. Thankfully for us he was only 19 and actually just trying to meet someone nice. Family noticed someone strange leaving there place as they came back early from the movies. Phone kept records of last calls. Gave us the number when they confirmed it. I threaten his life. Daughter on restriction. We were lucky, oh so very lucky!

She is now in college and cannot believe how stupid she was. Lesson learned, hopefully

[tickler]

Well another story showing both sides, incuding MoM's take on it.
http://avnonline.com/index_cache.php...tent_ID=285954

[CaptainJSparrow]

This article suggests that the government will not pursue this any further: http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=198500300

[Jim]

Originally Posted by CaptainJSparrow

This article suggests that the government will not pursue this any further: http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=198500300

That is strange. Back in 96 when the evilest of laws was past by Congress and then shot down by the Supreme Court, Congress changed the words a bit and it went again. The Supreme Court basically said the second time, the internet is the last place to find free speach. Don't bring this to us again.

It's just hard to believe they won't push this at least to the Supreme Court.