Supreme Court Hears Online Porn Case

Yahoo! News ^ | Tue Mar 2, 5:20 PM ET | ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

[AM2000]

WASHINGTON - Kids, don't try this at home. The Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer says he typed the words "free porn" into an Internet search engine on his home computer and got a list of more than 6 million Web sites. That's proof, Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the Supreme Court on Tuesday, of the need for a law protecting children from a tide of online smut.

Internet porn is "persistent and unavoidable," Olson told the court, and government has a strong interest in shielding teenagers and younger children from it.

The problem, as the Supreme Court has observed before, is that a lot of dirty pictures are constitutionally protected free speech that adults have the right to see and buy. Children don't have the same rights, but kids and adults alike can surf the Web.

Porn is "as easily available to children as a television remote," Olson told the justices as he defended a 1998 law that Congress meant as a firewall to shield children.

The Child Online Protection Act has never taken effect. A federal appeals court struck down the law twice, on separate constitutional grounds, and it is now before the Supreme Court for a second time.

The law, known as COPA, was a replacement for a broader law that the Supreme Court rejected as unconstitutional in 1997. Congress retooled the law to address the high court's free speech concerns, Olson said.

Several justices weren't buying it.

"It seems to me this is very sweeping," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said at one point.

If porn sellers are flouting the existing laws about obscenity, perhaps the government should go after them more aggressively, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) suggested.

The Bush administration has brought 21 indictments in two years alleging that Web site operators and others crossed the line from acceptable smut to illegal obscenity, Olson told the court.

"With such a vast array of sites, there are so few prosecutions," O'Connor said. "It's just amazing."

COPA would make it a crime for commercial Web site operators to knowingly place material that is harmful to children within their unrestricted online reach. Violators can face six months in jail and civil and criminal penalties of $50,000.

The law is meant to go after the really bad guys, Olson argued. He suggested that the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) and other opponents of the law are crying wolf.

It's the government that is being unrealistic, ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson countered.

The law "criminalizes a depiction or description of nudity, or even a description of the female breast," Beeson told the justices.

The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of online bookstores, artists and others, including operators of Web sites that offer explicit how-to sex advice or health information. Among them is Mitch Tepper, whose Web site dispenses very specific instructions to help the disabled enjoy sex. One article he has posted online is titled "Handsfree Whoopie."

Tepper risks jail time if some prosecutor somewhere finds his material "harmful to minors," the ACLU argued. COPA gives no absolute definition of what is "harmful to minors," leaving that in part to "the average person, applying contemporary community standards."

The ACLU maintains that the community standards test is meaningless when applied to the far-flung Internet, but the Supreme Court ruled two years ago that that claim is not enough, on its own, to make the law unconstitutional.

The high court is expected to issue a more definitive ruling by summer.

The case is Ashcroft v. ACLU, 03-218.

[cyborg]

Everything is for THE CHILLLLLLLLREN

[steplock]

1970's: Parents - Do you know where your children are?

2000's: Parents - Do you know where your children are surfing?

Key word .... PARENTS!

[AM2000]

I'd like to know what the administration thinks the difference is between "acceptable smut" to "illegal obscenity". Of course, I don't expect anyone to post it here on FR cuz the response would probably get yanked if they did ;-)

[Oztrich Boy]

Inquiring minds want to know

What's this "better than Google" Search Engine?

Search: the web
Searched the web for "free porn". Results 1 - 10 of about 2,830,000. Search took 0.13 seconds.

[Arthalion]

2000's: Parents - Do you know where your children are surfing?

Yes, I do. My kids have pretty much unlimited access to the Internet, but they know that I proxy their connection and log the sites they're visiting. They also know what the punishment is for visiting inappropriate websites.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

WASHINGTON - Kids, don't try this at home. The Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer says he typed the words "free porn" into an Internet search engine on his home computer and got a list of more than 6 million Web sites. That's proof, Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the Supreme Court on Tuesday, of the need for a law protecting children from a tide of online smut.

Internet porn is "persistent and unavoidable," Olson told the court,

Simple solution: Don't type "Free Porn" into a search engine.

[cyborg]

A similar thread like that ended up in the FR backroom! hehehe

[AM2000]

Don't use the " " around the phrase and you'll get 6 mill.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=free+porn

Searched the web for free porn. Results 1 - 10 of about 6,070,000. Search took 0.17 seconds

---

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22free+porn%22

Searched the web for "free porn". Results 1 - 10 of about 2,390,000. Search took 0.22 seconds.

[cyborg]

What's the punishment? :D

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Yes, I do. My kids have pretty much unlimited access to the Internet, but they know that I proxy their connection and log the sites they're visiting. They also know what the punishment is for visiting inappropriate websites.

So which is more severely punished: Visiting porn sites or visiting Democratic Underground? 8>)

[Arthalion]

Another solution: Teach your kids to use Google. Then open Google, click the "Preferences" link, and select "Strict Filtering". The website will remember your setting during subsequent visits and will filter ALL porn from your search results. It's a very effective FREE MARKET solution to the problem (of course, these socialists would never accept something like THAT, would they?)

There's also SafeSurf, NetNanny, and a host of other inexpensive products that parents can buy if they're concerned with what their kids are seeing on the Internet.

[vetvetdoug]

I don't have time to see nekkid wimmin. I spend all of my free free time on the internet with the FreeRepublic.

[Oztrich Boy]

Don't use the " " around the phrase and you'll get 6 mill.

to be honest, I knew that.

But looking for free + porn doesn't necessarily find "free porn"

So the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Theodore Olson, can't Google. Why should anyone take notioce of his "expert" opinion?

[squarebarb]

I expect this thread to be swamped by porn addicts but nonetheless, it's got to be stopped.

No society can survive this onslaught of the depiction of women as sluts.

No society has had to face this before.

They sure go after people downloading music.

Maybe it's just a way of exhibiting to Americans how bad the justice system has become, and another black mark against SCOTUS if they refuse.

[Arthalion]

So which is more severely punished: Visiting porn sites or visiting Democratic Underground? 8>)

Gack! One would make me mad, and the other would make me feel like I failed as a father. YOU figure out which is which!

And for the record: I'm not a strict disciplinarian. The penalty in my home for visiting inappropriate websites is a TOTAL loss of computer priveledges for three weeks. I've only had to impose it once, on my daughter, and she tried to whine her way out of it by claiming that she needed the computer to type up her homework. I dug my old typewriter out of the closet and told her to do it the old fashioned way. I've had zero problems since :-)

[mysterio]

Yay, more government raising our kids for us. Can't people watch their kids when they are on the net?

[squarebarb]

When did we start having to guard children against smut in our own homes?

Punishments used to be for childish offenses like stealing cookies and not taking out the trash.

Now punishments are for accessing filth.

Put yourself in the mind of a 10 or 12 - year -old. You kow that your television and computer are sending you images of frightening sexual things every day and all the time.

We didn't grow up like this. Wonder what it will do to our kids and grandkids?

[arjay]

Good for you. I appreciate parents who take their responsibility seriously.

[Kerberos]

"With such a vast array of sites, there are so few prosecutions," O'Connor said. "It's just amazing."

Not really, if you do a DNS search on many of these site they are located outside of the US.