Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 22, 2007, 09:02:23 AM
-
Unsurprisingly, the ACLU attacked this law.
Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:32 a.m. EDT
Federal Judge Strikes Down Web Porn Law
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.
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.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.
Technology experts said parents now have more serious concerns than Web sites with pornography. For instance, the threat of online predators has caused worries among parents whose children use social-networking sites such as News Corp. (NWS)'s MySpace.
The case sparked a legal firestorm last year when Google challenged a Justice Department subpoena seeking information on what people search for online. Government lawyers had asked Google to turn over 1 million random Web addresses and a week's worth of Google search queries.
A judge sharply limited the scope of the subpoena, which Google had fought on trade secret, not privacy, grounds.
To defend the nine-year-old Child Online Protection Act, government lawyers attacked software filters as burdensome and less effective, even though they have previously defended their use in public schools and libraries.
"It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its source," a government attorney, Peter D. Keisler, argued in a post-trial brief.
Critics of the law argued that filters work best because they let parents set limits based on their own values and their child's age.
The law addressed material accessed by children under 17, but applied only to content hosted in the United States.
The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law. They also said the Justice Department could do more to enforce obscenity laws already on the books.
The 1998 law followed Congress' unsuccessful 1996 effort to ban online pornography. The Supreme Court in 1997 deemed key portions of that law unconstitutional because it was too vague and trampled on adults' rights.
The newer law narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and defined indecency more specifically.
In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries to use software filters if they receive certain federal funds. The high court upheld that law in 2003.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/22/103424.shtml?s=ic
-
So you are against the 1st amendment? Besides what the hell is a credit card going to do, for age verification, result in more fraud, if a kid wants to see some porn then they will find out how to.
-
Why should it be the responsibility of the Porn site to keep someone else's kids from viewing?
-
So you are against the 1st amendment?
??? Where exactly did I say I am "against the 1st amendment"?
-
Can't a fellow get a good jerk these days without someone trying to restrict it? :-\
-
??? Where exactly did I say I am "against the 1st amendment"?
I didnt
-
I didnt
Here is what you said: "So you are against the 1st amendment?" That was a question directed to me about an issue I never raised.
-
Here is what you said: "So you are against the 1st amendment?" That was a question directed to me about an issue I never raised.
Right a question? Are you against the 1st amendment? Should the government control what I want to see in the rpivacy of my house?
-
My wife is freaking out because her nieces (ages 10 and 7) went into my wallet and saw my business card.
Idiot mormons.
-
Right a question? Are you against the 1st amendment? Should the government control what I want to see in the rpivacy of my house?
Why are you asking me a question about an issue I never raised? I never said I was "against the 1st amendment." This is similar to the "when did you stop beating your wife question."
-
Why are you asking me a question about an issue I never raised? I never said I was "against the 1st amendment." This is similar to the "when did you stop beating your wife question."
I don't remember asking you that question, haha.
-
My wife is freaking out because her nieces (ages 10 and 7) went into my wallet and saw my business card.
Idiot mormons.
What's on your business card?
-
What's on your business card?
A woman wearing a bikini top and jeans. The pose would hardly be described as provocative.
-
A woman wearing a bikini top and jeans. The pose would hardly be described as provocative.
Ah so. Not a big deal.
-
Ah so. Not a big deal.
Yeah not for you cause you have the power of the internet, but to that kid it was prime wanking material hell a sears catlog is a treasure trove for kids that age, only a matter of time before a Christan coalition targets it.
-
Yeah not for you cause you have the power of the internet, but to that kid it was prime wanking material hell a sears catlog is a treasure trove for kids that age, only a matter of time before a Christan coalition targets it.
Yes, only a matter of time before a "Christian coalition" targets a picture of a woman with a bikini top in a man's wallet. ::)
-
My wife is freaking out because her nieces (ages 10 and 7) went into my wallet and saw my business card.
Idiot mormons.
what is on your card? I agree on the mormons though, don't get me started
-
what is on your card? I agree on the mormons though, don't get me started
He said just a woman wearing a bikini top and jeans. What about the mormons? Pentecostals (sp) are pretty nutty haha check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkf7DpnnNck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkf7DpnnNck)
-
My wife is freaking out because her nieces (ages 10 and 7) went into my wallet and saw my business card.
Idiot mormons.
I hope she's freaking out on them and not you. What business do they have going in your wallet?
-
He said just a woman wearing a bikini top and jeans. What about the mormons? Pentecostals (sp) are pretty nutty haha check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkf7DpnnNck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkf7DpnnNck)
The thing about mormons (my wife's family is devout) is the way they change their religion so much. Like they can't drink caffeine but are a major owner in coca cola, how they used to believe blacks carried the mark of the devil until BYUs sports teams realized that they were losing etc...