High Courts ok Porn as free speech... (CNN Story)

CNN Story

What do you think?

I’m Ok with this. I think parents need to be more active in their children’s use of computers. Its getting out of hand. It’s the same as it was with Porn Mags. Parents either found them or didn’t.

I guess I just always saying Parents should ultimately be responsible for their children.

Thoughts? Discussion?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked enforcement of a law intended to protect children from pornography on the Internet, saying the law probably violates free-speech guarantees.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court said 1998 legislation 'likely violates the First Amendment.'

The court ordered parties from both sides to reconsider the issue in a lower-court trial. The ruling gives the Bush administration a chance to prove the law does not violate free-speech rights.

The case tested the free-speech rights of adults against the power of Congress to control Internet commerce.

The 1998 law, known as the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), never took effect. It would have authorized fines up to $50,000 for the crime of placing material that is 'harmful to minors' within the easy reach of children on the Internet, according to The Associated Press.

The law also would have required adults to use access codes and or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, according to the AP.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, 'the government has not shown that the less-restrictive alternatives proposed ... should be disregarded. Those alternatives, indeed, may be more effective' than the law passed by Congress.

Kennedy said rapid changes in technology would make filtering software a more effective tool to block access than the more restrictive means laid out in COPA, such as age verification and use of a credit card.

He said a new trial would allow fresh discussion of the kinds of technology that could satisfy constitutional concerns.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with Kennedy.

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that, while the law places some burdens on adults wishing to view adult material, 'it significantly helps to achieve a compelling congressional goal, protecting children from exposure to commercial pornography.' He was joined by justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Scalia.

---

Posted by Bridetobein05

YOU CAN COME ON LIW FOR PORN NOWADAYS!!!!!!!!!

---

i'd hardly call this site porn

---

Posted by don424

---

Posted by Bridetobein05

YOU CAN COME ON LIW FOR PORN NOWADAYS!!!!!!!!!

---

i'd hardly call this site porn

---

bridetobein05 - what does that even mean??

I agree with you guys, it is up to the parents. Companies also should come up with more effective blocking software to help parents since you can't sit behind your kid every time he's on the internet.

This isn't about parents blocking porn and other potentially dangerous materials to children. This was more about public places like libraries preventing children from getting to the sites. The problem was that the filters that are out there would restrict adults as well as children and would also serve to restrict sites that had actual educational and research purposes, including issues such as breast cancer, sex education, anything that mentions anything remotely related to something that may be considered remotely related to porn, etc.

I think it's great. I wish more Justices had voted this way, but since COPA has never actually been passed, I'm not entirely worried. What I am worried about is the current administration's feelings on what I am and am not allowed to do, read, see, hear, etc. But that's an argument for another time and another place.

---

Posted by don424

i agree with this wholeheartedly, the gov't has no right to ban what we can and cannot watch or view -- it's up to parents to monitor what their kids are watching and doing online.

---

Ditto