Federal Judge Strikes Down Law Protecting Children from Porn as Violating Free Speech

LifeSiteNews ^ | 3/22/07 | Peter J. Smith

[wagglebee]

PHILADELPHIA, March 22, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A US district court judge stuck down a 1998 law passed by Congress against Internet pornography that made it a crime for commercial website operators to let children under 18 view pornographic materials.

Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over the four-week trial last fall, ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union that the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA) violated a constitutional right to free speech.

The judge ruled that while the law intends to protect children from commercial pornography, parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not impinge upon the rights of others to unrestricted access to pornography.

"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," wrote Reed in his 84-page long decision.

However, Justice Department attorneys argued the government has a duty to help parents protect their children from viewing online pornography.

"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," Peter D. Keisler argued in a post-trial brief.

COPA would have criminalized US-based websites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" according to "contemporary community standards." The law required pornographic sites to require a credit card number or other proof of age, and remove "teaser" pornographic images from their access pages.

Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison, however the ACLU representing a cadre of "sexual health" sites, Salon.com, obgyn.net, the Philadelphia Gay News, and others objected that more than just pornographers would be subject to the restrictions of COPA.

"This law was carefully crafted to address hardcore pornography and raise a wall of protection between children and these hardcore pornographers who seek to exploit them by exposing them to this obscene material," Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues for Concerned Women for America (CWA) told LifeSiteNews.com.

Barber noted while the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws have an "overt chilling effect on free speech, here for some reason hard core pornography gets this additional layer of protection which other forms of free speech are not entitled too. It stands logic and reason on its head."

"Parents can't be everywhere at once, we need additional layers of protection. COPA is a very basic, non-restrictive, and common-sense way to protect these children from hard-core pornographers."

The 1998 law has never been enforced since President Clinton signed it due to its court challenges. It followed Congress' unsuccessful 1996 effort to ban online pornography, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1997 as unconstitutionally vague and trampling on adults' rights.

The government is expected to appeal the ruling, and the case may return eventually to the Supreme Court.

To contact respectfully the US District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania:

United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Office of the Clerk of Court
U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street, Room 2609
Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797
Phone: (215) 597-7704
Fax: (215) 597-6390

E-mail: PAED_clerksoffice@paed.uscourts.gov

To write a letter to the Governor send to:
Governor Edward G. Rendell's Office
225 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
 
To telephone the Governor call:
(717) 787-2500.
E-mail: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Governor/govmail.html
 
A copy of Judge Reed's ruling can be found here:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/07D0346P.pdf

U.S. Supreme Court Rules 5-4 against Protecting Children from Internet Porn
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04062908.html

[wagglebee]

However, Justice Department attorneys argued the government has a duty to help parents protect their children from viewing online pornography.

And the left thinks that pornography is as a valid method of indoctrination.

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[keepitreal]

I knew this would evenutally happen. Pornography is king and its promotion through the guise of free speech continues. Protection of children is meaningless if a buck can be made. The ban on child pornography will be next.

[Integrityrocks]

I may have free speech rights, but this renders me totally "speechless."

There ARE different levels of Hell and this judge is not going to like his.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I suppose if someone were to try to expose children to racist porn liberal judges would explode like those computers Captain Kirk used to talk into logical suicide (Landru, Nomad, etc.).

[Mark was here]

Most likely a good decision, to protect out individual rights. I fear many will say that those interested in protecting our individual rights are just child molesting perverts. It is not true, but it will be said any way. How sad.

[RunningWolf]

What a corruption of the Constitution/intent, equating porn with free speech.

[traditional1]

"I may have free speech rights"

You ONLY have free speech if you speak in politically-correct terms:

Try using the "N-word" or faggot or dyke or fudge-packer, etc. and see if you can avoid prosecution for hate speech and/or "offensive" behavior.

Unfortunately, exposing a child freely to pornography is considered non-invasive and non-offensive, compared to other things the Liberals endorse......

[operation clinton cleanup]

Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison, however the ACLU representing a cadre of "sexual health" sites, Salon.com,

Salon.com? Isn't Salon.com more propaganda than pornography?

[Right Cal Gal]

And these are the same people, of course, who lobby for the enactment of "hate" crime legislation, so that you can be prosecuted for your thoughts.

[Jeff Gordon]

Imagine that!

Parents are supposed to become responsible for their kids. What is the world coming to? The next thing you know we will be making everyone be responsible for themselves.

[Eastbound]

First thing you know the judges will be using penis pumps under their robes while presiding.

Oh, wait! Too late.

[Responsibility2nd]

The ban on child pornography will be next.

I agree.

With idiots like the ACLU, it won't be long before child porn laws are softened.

Then next we will see child sex predator laws being repealed.

As things are now, pedophiles receive a slap on the wrist and are in and out of prison so quick, it makes your head spin.

[adorno]

Try using the "N-word" or faggot or dyke or fudge-packer, etc. and see if you can avoid prosecution for hate speech and/or "offensive" behavior.

Perhaps then, someone needs to challenge the perception that those words can't be used. Any volunteers? And if you do volunteer, see if the ACLU will take on your case to defend your freedom of speech.

You'll get the standard response from the ACLU folks about how you do have freedom of speech, but you don't have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, unless of course there really is a fire.

[Dante3]

Does the Judge belong to NAMBLA?

[California Patriot]

Rudy -- please, please, please GET ON THIS, NOW. It's PERFECT for you.

[Oztrich Boy]

Parents are supposed to become responsible for their kids. What is the world coming to? The next thing you know we will be making everyone be responsible for themselves

Oh dontcha know: "It Takes a Village"

[keepitreal]

And, we are. I don't think it is asking a lot that graphic pornography not have at least the internet equivalent of a brown wrapper over it.

[madprof98]

The next thing you know we will be making everyone be responsible for themselves.

Only a libertarian lunatic would claim that the wider society has no responsibility whatsoever to help parents protect their children from danger.

[Redcloak]

Forcing parents to act like parents?!? That's OBSCENE!!

</sarcasm>