Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on January 21, 2009, 11:21:19 AM
-
Nice job ACLU. ::)
Justices refuse to reconsider law on restricting porn on the Web
Posted: 11:05 AM ET
From CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Supreme Court has blocked further consideration of a federal law designed to keep sexual material from underage users of the Web.
The justices without comment Wednesday rejected an appeal from the federal government to reinstate the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), passed by Congress in 1998. The high court and subsequent federal courts said the law — which has never taken effect — had serious free speech problems.
The Bush administration was a strong supporter of the law and the Justice Department led the fight in court to revive it.
The justices issued their ruling a day after all nine were on hand for the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor also attended the ceremony.
The case tested the free speech rights of adults against the power of Congress to control Internet commerce. The Supreme Court twice previously ruled against COPA, leaning toward the argument that it represented government censorship rather than lawful regulation of adult-themed businesses. The law would have prevented private businesses from creating and distributing "harmful" content that minors could access on the Internet.
Free speech advocates said adults would be barred access to otherwise legal material, and that parental control devices and various filtering technology are less intrusive ways to protect children.
The high court in 2004 upheld a preliminary injunction against the law and sent the case back to lower courts for consideration of the arguments. In their opinion at the time, the 5-4 majority concluded COPA "likely violates the First Amendment."
"The government has not shown that the less restrictive alternatives proposed … should be disregarded," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 2004 decision. "Those alternatives, indeed, may be more effective" than the law passed by Congress. "Filters are less restrictive" he said, and thus pose less risk of muzzling free speech. "They impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source."
He added, "There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech" if the law takes effect."
In reconsidering the law, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia again ruled the law unconstitutional.
The case is Mukasey v. ACLU (08-565).
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/21/justices-refuse-to-reconsider-law-on-restricting-porn-on-the-web/#more-36703
-
It's called an Internet filter. You can even install routers to block undesired content. It's not rocket science.
It's pretty lame when "conservatives" start using "protect the children" to push statist government policies.
-
It's called an Internet filter. You can even install routers to block undesired content. It's not rocket science.
It's pretty lame when "conservatives" start using "protect the children" to push statist government policies.
WELL SAID!
-
Kids need porn!
I remember getting hold of some porn in my early teens, best education you could ask for. The schools are never gonna go into it in that detail.
-
yea, this is the parent's responsibility.
-
Funny that BB is mad at the ACLU, and not the law which was applied by judges in court.
I mean, the ACLU could bring up 40 lawsuits saying that I should be able to urinate on neocons when I see them. But since the EXISTING LAW says that's illegal, the suits would all be dismissed.
You're mad because the ACLU brought forth a case - but it's the lawmakers who write the law that the judges read to make their judgment.
-
The ACLU sucks. Nothing is beneath them.
-
The ACLU sucks. Nothing is beneath them.
Explain your outrage. What have they done wrong here?
Some of us still believe that civil liberties are fundamental to the American way of life.
-
Explain your outrage. What have they done wrong here?
Some of us still believe that civil liberties are fundamental to the American way of life.
I'm not outraged.
The ACLU has no boundaries. They've advocated on behalf of child rapists (NAMBLA). They are anti-religious extremists. They will do whatever is necessary to ensure someone can click on a porn link, even if that someone is 10 years old. They suck.
I have no problems with reasonable measures to restrict porn access by minors. There is enough in the stores and online for any adult who wants that kind of gratification to watch to his/her heart's content. This law wouldn't prevent that access at all.
-
On the bright side, this will always be remembered as Bush's final failure before leaving office.