Posted on 01/21/2009 11:15:32 AM PST by EagleUSA
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to consider attempts to revive a 1998 law intended to protect children from Internet pornography, ending a legal conflict dating to the administration of President Bill Clinton.
Without comment, the court handed down an order declining to take the case of Mukasey v. A.C.L.U., No. 08-565. The administration of former President George W. Bush, through Attorney General Michael Mukasey, had asked the justices to review the law. The American Civil Liberties Union has been a leading foe of the statute.
The Child Online Protection Act has been the subject of court battles since Congress enacted it in 1998, and it has never taken effect. Some judges have called the controversy an agonizing conflict between the cherished right of free speech and society’s duty to watch over children, many of whom grow up as familiar with computers as earlier generations of children were with coloring books.
The high court’s refusal to take another look at the law was not surprising, given that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled last July that the law violated the First Amendment because filtering technologies and other tools offered less restrictive ways to shield children.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
For the Childrun of course..
The ACLU is on the side of the pornographers.
>The American Civil Liberties Union has been a leading foe of the statute.
> Good news for Americans ...
Sure about that?
The ACLU is on the side of the pornographers.
:::::::::::::
Yes. But the authors of the legislation attempt are not. They would set precedent against the First Amendment.
Thank you SCOTUS for doing this one right.
So is the ALA (American Library Ass.).
They even had instruction for youths on how to circumvent filtering software where they couldn’t prohibit its installation.
They do not believe in a concept of “age appropriate material” and believe that they should be able to access everything in a library (adult periodicals and R/NC-17/unrated videos as well).
The notion that the 1st Amendment was intended to safeguard pornography is an invention of the left.
I agree that filtering software is not flawed. There have been efforts to see FR blocked as a “hate” site.
er “not flawless”
Why am I not surprised? The left considers themselves above the law.
The notion that the 1st Amendment was intended to safeguard pornography is an invention of the left.
:::::::::::
Surely you did not miss the entire point. It has nothing to do with pornography, per se. It is ALL about freedom of expression, as assured by the First Amendment. And THAT is what the SCOTUS sought to protect, as well as the courts that preceeded them on this issue.
Keep a close eye on those that will be attacking our First Amendment. It will be extraordinary now.
Pornography was never free speech until the Supreme Court decided to make new law.
The current Supreme Court is just rejecting challenges to it’s dictatorial power.
Yes, now it’s up to the parents to deal with it.
——”Congress shall make no law” seems plain enough to me—
I’ll never understand how a good amount of Freepers, all true conservatives rail against the nanny state....until a call comes to limit a constitutional right “for the children” or for “decency” or for whatever. Then they’re all about it.
That’s “chilrun” not children. Anything for the chilrun.
Pornography was never free speech until the Supreme Court decided to make new law.
:::::::::::
Huh? New law? What new law? Read the article and its history. By the way, the judicial branch of government does not MAKE law. But we may see that change under Obama and his socialists.
Agree.
It is astonishing how resistant civilized people are to the idea that violent pornography tears at the foundational psychology of youth and a healthy sense of self and humanity.
But it is easier to understand when studies show extreme porn stimulates the same pleasure centers in the brain as heroin. Otherwise values-driven people will do much to reserve access to an addictive impulse.
The debasement of humans—women and children particular is rationalized (a “victimless” recreation is the hackneyed term of choice).
The disturbing support of such a non-redeeming and pervasive negative influence just shows the tremendous amount of consumers of this most prurient fare.
It is narcotic in effect and damaging to us all, but the defenders will never admit it. Instead, they feign intellectual superiority—ironic when the thrust ( pun intended) of their argument is rooted (pun intended) in the exact opposite region.
And please, first amendment factored in, DO NOT ever try and convince otherwise. George, Ben and Thomas never meant for this stuff to flow 24/7, everywhere/all the time, like a running faucet in our lives.
THIS action is about pornography. Straight on point.
Trying to index damaging pornography in with all other “freedom of speech” issues is a ruse.
Yeah, a necessary reality, pal.
You suggest otherwise?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.