Porn wins in free-speech Internet battle

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | June 29, 2004

[JohnHuang2]

The U.S. Supreme Court today blocked enforcement of a law designed to protect children from Internet pornography, believing the measure was likely a violation of free-speech rights.

The 5-4 ruling in the case of Ashcroft vs. the American Civil Liberties Union is not the first time the high court has considered the case, and it likely won't be the last, as the issue now returns to a lower federal court, giving the federal government another chance to prove the law does not violate the First Amendment.

The Child Online Protection Act was passed in 1998 and signed by then-President Clinton. Though it now has the support of the Bush administration, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the majority, felt the measure was too broad, impacting legal material along with smut.

"There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech," he said.

Kennedy added that software designed to filter out pornography "is not a perfect solution to the problem of children gaining access to harmful-to-minors materials."

The First Amendment protects material that is indecent but not obscene, allowing adults to view or purchase it, while children are precluded.

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

On the dissenting side were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer, who felt the law is already constitutional.

"The court's decision removes an important weapon from the prosecutorial arsenal," Breyer said.

"We're very pleased with the decision," ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said. "The status quo is still with us and the court made it safe for artists, sex educators and Web publishers to communicate with adults without risking jail time."

The ruling is being blasted by family groups across the nation.

"The Court's utter lack of concern for the irreparable harm pornography does to our most innocent citizens is astounding," said Michael DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The only real harm that would be suffered by the pornographers if this law was allowed to go into effect is a loss of money. For the Court to find otherwise is reprehensible," DePrimo added.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice said his group was disappointed with today's decision.

"The Supreme Court missed an important opportunity to act now to protect our nation's young people," Sekulow said. "By sending the case back to a lower court and blocking COPA from taking effect, the high court further delays consideration of an important law needed to protect children. We are hopeful that the government will be able to establish that Congress acted properly and in a constitutional manner in enacting this law."

[Bringbackthedraft]

Darn, is there anything that will stop these porn pop ups and spam?

[BipolarBob]

Hee-Haw joke:
"Doctor my arm is broke in two places, what should I do?"

"Doc says "Stay OUT OF THEM places."

[TommyDale]

"Darn, is there anything that will stop these porn pop ups and spam?"

Yes, step into the 21st Century and get yourself a "pop-up stopper" and an e-mail spam filter. Try using such free browsers as Mozilla, Opera, etc. that suppress the pop-ups. Do some simple research and enjoy using the internet again.

[FierceDraka]

Darn, is there anything that will stop these porn pop ups and spam?

Yes - they're called Zone Alarm, Ad-Aware, Spybot, and mail-filtering programs. Also, disabling the installation of unsigned ActiveX controls in IE will go a long way to keeping your system clean of that garbage.