Court Strikes Down Online Porn Law

Associated Press ^ | March 7, 2003 | David B Caruso

[An.American.Expatriate]

As much as it pains me, I must agree with this. The Federal Government has NO mandate to determine what "speech" is alowed or not! The Congress is specifically forbidden from doing so. Here, as in many other "laws" as well (Campaign Finance comes immediately to mind), the Congress has not adhered to the word of law:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

To abridge is to shorten or limit. Basically, any law passed by Congress which in any way limits our free speech rights is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

[general_re]

Basically, any law passed by Congress which in any way limits our free speech rights is unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

Any law?

[AntiGuv]

An excellent ruling, IMHO. While I fully support efforts to restrict minors from access to inappropriate material, this was simply not the means of doing so.

[goldstategop]

The 3rd Circus and the ACLU think the government should be prevented from doing ANYTHING to protect children from the dark side of the Internet. After all the immediate and selfish gratification of adult desires trumps the rights of children. The Founders never imagined the Constitution as giving open ended license to pornography suitable for all ages. According to the 3rd Circus and the ACLU, if children can't view adults engaged in sexual activity, we're a close-minded society. What a comforting thought.

[AFPhys]

I agree with you to a certain extent. However, there absolutely HAS to be a way derived to protect our CHILDREN (who are not necessarily covered by first amendment rights) from this material. I do not know what that should look like, but I know it has to happen. I think the "credit card" proposal mentioned in the final paragraph is the most likely best way to go, and I believe that would pass muster with the USSC, but apparently not this Appeals court.

[goldstategop]

Bunk! The First Amendment has never been held before to cover profanity, indecency, and obscenity as forms of speech protected by its guarantees. Its not like we suffer from a lack of sexually explicit entertainment online in this country. To the contrary I think we simply have too much of it and its coarsening the vitality and health of our mores and culture.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Yes General any

"Congress shall make no ..." is absolute. There is no loophole! For example, when the framers "guarenteed" habeas corpus, the allowed for a loophole (war). The provided no loophole in the First Amendment.

[AntiGuv]

I don't have the technical knowledge to state how (or state well), but the burden should be placed on developing either internet browsers or ISP services which have automatic "parental control" settings that include some prohibitive means of modifying them (which only an adult owner should be able to do). Such an approach, in my view, would protect minors as effectively as any other means while not limiting adult access in the slightest.

[An.American.Expatriate]

You HAVE no First Amendment "Rights". This is a HUGE misconception! The First Amendment "further limits" the CONGRESS by prohibiting them from passing any law which abriges free speech (and others..).

[smokeyjon]

"However, there absolutely HAS to be a way derived to protect our CHILDREN (who are not necessarily covered by first amendment rights) from this material."

There already is, but people don't want to deal with it: education and responsibility. As far as I am concerned, providing your kids with unrestricted or un-monitored Internet access is as bad as leaving your porn collection out where they can find it.

Me, I do computer and network security for a living, so when the time comes, it'll be painfully simple for me to put into place what I need to keep my kids off of porn sites when they aren't being monitored. However, this is obviously not the case with the vast majority of people. I say to that, TFB.

If you aren't willing to take the necessary steps to keep your kids and porno away from each other on the Internet, then don't provide Internet access. I'm tired of the nanny-state mentality that parents want because they are too stupid and/or lazy to properly protect their kids themselves.

[goldstategop]

By your logic, laws against slander and libel are a violation of free speech too. Hey let anything go. That's the mores of today's constitutional jurisprudence - no limits on anything that might offend the sensibilities of decent society. Yup, we've come a long way baby!

[Happy2BMe]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech , or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I agree the court made the right decision. As much as I detest the worms preying on innocent youth over the www (and more measures need to be explored in this area to protect them), too many other (innocent) freedoms may have been sacrificed had the measure passed in it's present state.

I would like the web to be enjoyed without a split-second barrage of ten or twelve pages of every kind of filth known to the pits of hell popping up all over your screen (involuntarily).

Porno kings are taking money to the bank in the Billion$ of dollar$ and need seriously to be curtailed from saturating innocent web surfing from having to be innocently exposed to it.

So, that is the problem - how to curtail the porno slime from invading the privacy of those not desiring for themselves, or for members of their household whom they are legally responsible for from having to view it.

BTW: If you don't think million$ are not fed back into congressional coffers by the porno indu$try each and every year from porno sales - we need to talk.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Yes, you are correct. Any FEDERAL Law which in any way limits free speech is unconstitutional.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Hello Happy,

as I stated in my original post, I find the Subject matter itself very distasteful.

However, the First Amendment Prohibition to Congress is so plain that it is almost ridiculous that it still needs to be explained.

[smokeyjon]

You bring up some excellent points. There are ways to protect yourself from things like porno pop-up barrages, but there aren't any surefire ones. Some of the commercial products designed for this do a decent job, but are far from perfect. However, legislation is absolutely not the way to do it. The Internet has too much promise, and is too powerful a tool for us to allow lawmakers to start dictating what is and is not allowed on it, and how it can and cannot be used, outside of patently illegal stuff like kiddie porn.

[brityank]

... laws against slander and libel are a violation of free speech too.

Bzzzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing.
Truth is an absolute defense against both.

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
    -- Marbury ~vs~ Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

[An.American.Expatriate]

See my reply at 17

[An.American.Expatriate]

See my reply at 17 (strike that!!) 14!!!

[Houmatt]

In Thursday's opinion, the court said that in seeking to define material harmful to minors, the law made no distinction between things inappropriate for a 5-year-old and things harmful to someone in their early teens.

I kept reading and re-reading this sentence, trying to make sense of it. Truth is, you can't. This kind of reasoning, as supplied by the 3rd Court, is completely illogical in every sense of the word.

But let's get to the heart of the matter: The fact is, the ACLU does not want any restrictions regarding the access of minors to websites that are either obscene, illegal or patently adult. Not even the most reasonable (like requiring a valid major credit card before entering the site and seeing anything at all). And the reason why is obvious.

You tie this with their pro-bono defense of the criminal organization NAMBLA and you have yet another reason for the need to destroy threat numero uno to this country, the ACLU.