Free Republic

The U.S. Department of Justice has gone far beyond Google, MSN, and AOL in its quest to justify the anti-pornography Child Online Protection Act: The DOJ actually subpoenaed at least 34 Internet service providers, search companies, and security software firms. InformationWeek obtained copies of the subpoenas, replies, and other supporting documents through a Freedom of Information Act request. (You can download the subpoenas here at Information Week)

Google had its day in court this week in its battle with the Justice Department over a subpoena for data about Web searches and the sites available through Google's search engine. The judge indicated that he was inclined to give both sides something, and Justice later agreed to limit its request to "just" 5,000 sample searches and 50,000 Web addresses. This outcome may seem Solomonic, but the precedent is still troubling. The subpoena that started it all emerged from a separate case being tried in Pennsylvania. In that case, the ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of the 1998 Child Online...

The Justice Department will take Google to court on March 13 in San Jose, California, in response to Google’s repeated refusal to comply with federal subpoenas demanding information regarding the search engine’s database, specifically information related to searches conducted using the engine and the web sites available to Google’s users. Google is the largest search engine in the world, and the only one that has not cooperated with the Justice Department so far. Google claims these demands are a violation of privacy, but the government has assured them that no individuals would be identified by name, only their searches would...

This bill that amends current NH law to exlude lawfully possessed firearms from school zones has been put together by the notoriously anti-American and anti-LEO Hampton Police Chief and his murderous cohorts in the NH Chiefs of Police Association. It is scheduled to be voted on in committee on 1/25/05. You can contact the 3 sponsors based on the links below: Rep. Michael O'Neil, Hampton;Rep. George D. Winchell, Atkinson;Rep. Joseph E Stone, Candia. One person who contacted Rep. O'Neil was told that Mr. O'Neil really didn't know what was in the bill, and that the NH COPA had written it....

When the Supreme Court extended an injunction against the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), it also guaranteed the access by innocent children to on-line porn. Internet pornographers were handed a victory and the opportunity to corrupt American youth with no fines or consequences. In answer to the decision, America Needs Fatima is launching a new emergency campaign called Protect Kids from Porn. Starting in early September, the campaign has as its immediate goal the distribution of tens of thousands of protest flyers aimed toward protecting society’s most vulnerable members. Each brochure has two petitions, one addressed to...

Do you ever wonder why the internet is so polluted with pornography? The Supreme Court just reminded us why: it blocks every attempt by Congress to regulate the pornographers. From its ivory tower, the Court props open the floodgates for smut and graphic sex. Over the past five years, it has repeatedly found new constitutional rights for vulgarity, most recently invalidating the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). This latest judicial outrage happened on the final day of the Supreme Court term, after which the justices headed out for a long summer break. Lacking teenaged children of their own, the justices...

Explain this to me: The Supreme Court of the United States says the First Amendment protects the right of hard-core pornographers to lure children into "adult" Web sites where they will be exposed to every manner of deviant sexual behavior. Yet that same court says the First Amendment restricts the right of groups critical of this decision from airing ads at election time that oppose presidential candidates who might appoint similarly disposed judges. As incomprehensible as it might seem, this is the state of First Amendment jurisprudence as this Supreme Court term comes to a close. Tuesday, the court upheld...

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...

The Importance of the Child Online Protection Act by Judith ReismanPosted Feb 5, 2004BBC Online recently reported a "National Children's Homes" study that "[c]hild porn crimes have risen by 1,500% since 1988." But "Why" we ask? And why are "over one in three [users] involved in hands-on abuse"? Is it because the human brain is designed--rigged--to believe that any image it sees is real? If yes, would that fact stain the "Free Speech" defense of pornography? This is the question we will briefly explore here.[C]hild abuse….sculpts the brain to exhibit various antisocial…. behaviors…. violence and abuse….This suggests that much more...

Mar 7, 3:16 AM ESTCourt Strikes Down Online Porn Law By DAVID B. CARUSOAssociated Press Writer PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A federal appeals court has ruled that a law meant to safeguard children against Internet pornography is riddled with problems that make it "constitutionally infirm."A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Child Online Protection Act restricted free speech by barring Web page operators from posting information inappropriate for minors unless they limited the site to adults. The ruling upheld an injunction blocking the government from enforcing the law.The court said that in practice,...