U.S. judge blocks 1998 online porn law

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Thursday, March 22, 2007 · Last updated 6:59 a.m. PT

By MARYCLAIRE DALE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

PHILADELPHIA -- A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to
government efforts to control Internet pornography, striking down a
1998 U.S. law that makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators
to let children access "harmful" material.

In the ruling, the judge said parents can protect their children
through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not
limit the rights of others to free speech.

"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 Senior U.S. District
Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.

The law would have criminalized Web sites that allow children to
access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary
community standards." The sites would have been expected to
require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties
included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Read more: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1310AP_Internet_Blocking.html

[rodeodance]

1. i think this is good--this constant chipping away of 1st amend. is NOT good

for our country.

[VegasWolf]

2. Exactly, I agree 100%!!! nt

[Vogon_Glory]

3. Software Filters, YES!

I applaud having effective website-blocking software available for those folks who are bothered by young people seeing on-line erotica. I also applaud those outfits who take the trouble to register their sites and attempt to work with those "filter" companies so that minors aren't accidentally clicking on to where they shouldn't be.

It annoys me no end that the Bible-thumpers and their hand-wringing allies haven't gotten it through their skulls that if the Feds launch a new Meese-style "smutbuster" campaign against US-based online purveyors that DO co-operate with filtering companies, the only result is that the stuff will still be available over the Web, but this time it'll be on servers based in Europe or Asia. The offshore sites would as likely as not not even bother to co-operate with the likes of Surf Watch or Net Nanny.

[Hawaii Hiker]

4. I hate the Bible thumpers

One of the many hyprcrises of the right is they always scream less govt., but yet, they want the govt. to step in a regulate/censor/ban everything that they don't like pertaining to TV, music, & films...The religious right is such a deplorable group..

When RR wasn't firing air traffic controllers, he was pre-occupied with that idiotic Meese Commission. which was an absolute waste of time & resources...

[LiberalFighter]

5. I wouldn't have a problem with commercial x-rated sites required

to have their websites located only with domains beginning with xxx instead of www. That would make it easier for parents or adults that don't want to be directed to x-rated sites to filter.

[guitar man]

7. yes

actually, a .xxx extension would probably do the trick. :)

[htuttle]

8. Among other things, there would be problems defining what those are

While you might think that 'commercial x-rated site' is a straightforward term, it is not. There really isn't any 'rating agency' for the net.

And then the far worse problem with any legislation like this -- the US just plain don't own the internets. There is really no worldwide regulating body. The closest thing to one, named "ICANN" (http://www.icann.org/), just handles domain names and IP numbers, and is a non-profit private corporation not directly under the control of any government.

So we can either interact with the internets as it is on it's own terms, or we can attempt to 'close the door' to the rest of the world like China has tried to and then regulate our own private idaho as we see fit. I'd prefer the first option.

[Vidar]

6. Good riddance.

[w4rma]

9. Good. Maybe a few buisnesses will do buisness from within the U.S., again. (nt)

[Heidi]

10. Kick.

:kick:

[Charlie Brown]

11. Court Strikes Down Internet Porn Law

Source: CNN

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A federal judge on Thursday dealt another blow to government efforts to control Internet pornography, striking down a 1998 U.S. law that makes it a crime for commercial Web site operators to let children access "harmful" material.

In the ruling, the judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.

The law would have criminalized Web sites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards." The sites would have been expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web sites backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law. They argued that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/03/22/internet.blocking.ap/index.html

[Ignacio Upton]

12. Good

Now can someone challenge the constitutionality of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as well? We need to get rid of these ridiculous laws for the internet. As far as I'm concerned, the government should not regulate porn online unless if it's child porn.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

13. Good.

"Contemporary community standards"? There's a loaded phrase if I ever heard one.

[OnyxCollie]

14. Why isn't there a porn lobbyist?

I mean, if porn is so regularly downloaded off the internets, and it is copyrighted, why isn't there somebody fighting for the lost profits of the porn industry? I read here about Bushco going after image posting sites, supposedly to stop child porn. I think it's to stop copyright violations. I wonder if this is all being done under the table. Wouldn't be good PR to say you support porn stars' rights.

[Ignacio Upton]

15. Playboy sends cease and desist notices in many cases

However, it's not impossible to find old Playboy pics on other sites, especially of celebs.