Federal Judge Blocks Online Pornography Law
By IAN URBINA
Published: March 22, 2007
A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down a 1998 law today that made it a crime for Web sites to allow children to access material deemed "harmful."
The ruling, which will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, represents a second major setback in federal efforts to control Internet pornography, after a similar law was struck down by the high court in 1997.
Senior Judge Lowell Reed Jr. of the Federal District Court ruled that
the law was ineffective, overly broad and at odds with free speech
rights. He added that there are far less restrictive methods,
including software filters, that parents can use to control their
children's Internet use.
"Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another
attempt to protect our children from harmful material," Judge Reed
wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that "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."
The law never took effect because of an injunction, which was upheld
by the United States Supreme Court in 2004.
Civil libertarians applauded Judge Reed's decision as a victory for
free speech and creativity on the Internet.
"If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into
dumbing down of the Internet," said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the
American Civil Liberties Union. "All Internet would have had to be
brought down to a level that is acceptable to a 6-year-old and that
would have had a devastating effect on the kind of interactions that
take place on the Internet."
But others were disappointed.
"It's a very frustrating decision. We have an epidemic problem of
kids accessing pornographic material online," said Donna Rice Hughes,
president of Enough is Enough, a nonprofit group that works to
protect children from pornography and online
predators. "Pornographers continue to get a free pass on the Internet
from our federal courts, and efforts by Congress keep getting
trumped."
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the United States attorney's office,
said the department was reviewing the 84-page opinion and deciding
whether to appeal.
Under the law, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, commercial Web
publishers would have been required to request credit card
information or other proof of age from Web site users to prevent
children from viewing material deemed "harmful to minors"
by "contemporary community standards." Penalties included a $50,000
fine and up to six months in prison.
Congress first tried to regulate online pornography in 1996 with the
Communications Decency Act, but that law that was struck down by the
Supreme Court the following year. In drafting the 1998 law, which was
signed by President Bill Clinton, lawmakers hoped to pass
constitutional muster, narrowing its aim by focusing on commercial
Web sites and defining objectionable material as obscene or that
which offends "contemporary community standards."
In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries
receiving certain federal money to use software filters. The high
court upheld that law in 2003.
Lawrence Lessig, a constitutional law professor at Stanford
University, said the case decided today indicates the shifting
stances that civil libertarians have taken regarding controls placed
on the Internet.
"Civil libertarians have long had a `love-hate' relationship with
filters," he said, adding that while the A.C.L.U. argued in this case
that filters are preferable, the organization has also voiced
concerns about them.
"People buy filters worried about pornography, but then they see they
can also block sports, politics and lots of other things, so they
block those, too," Professor Lessig said. "The result is to reinforce
this infrastructure of filters." That, he said, may lead to "less
free speech than we would have if the government could only get it
right in their approach to limiting pornography. "
Mr. Hansen said that his organization has only opposed the mandatory
use of filters, not filters themselves.
In arguing on behalf of the 2000 law, Justice Department lawyers
defended the use of filters. But in the case decided by Judge Reed,
who was appointed to the federal bench in 1988 by President Ronald
Reagan, Justice Department lawyers highlighted the inadequacies of
filters.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web
publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law
would have a chilling effect on free speech.
"We know from experience that putting up any barrier in front of your
content, whether its an advertisement or a subscription wall or
anything that delays someone's access, has a big impact on traffic,"
said Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.com.
In a post-trial brief, Peter D. Keisler, a government lawyer, argued
that depending solely on filters was insufficient. "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," he wrote.
The Associated Press contributed reporting for this article.
www.nytimes. com/2007/ 03/22/us/ 22cnd-porn. html?
_r=1&hp&oref= slogin
By IAN URBINA
Published: March 22, 2007
A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down a 1998 law today that made it a crime for Web sites to allow children to access material deemed "harmful."
The ruling, which will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, represents a second major setback in federal efforts to control Internet pornography, after a similar law was struck down by the high court in 1997.
Senior Judge Lowell Reed Jr. of the Federal District Court ruled that
the law was ineffective, overly broad and at odds with free speech
rights. He added that there are far less restrictive methods,
including software filters, that parents can use to control their
children's Internet use.
"Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another
attempt to protect our children from harmful material," Judge Reed
wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that "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."
The law never took effect because of an injunction, which was upheld
by the United States Supreme Court in 2004.
Civil libertarians applauded Judge Reed's decision as a victory for
free speech and creativity on the Internet.
"If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into
dumbing down of the Internet," said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the
American Civil Liberties Union. "All Internet would have had to be
brought down to a level that is acceptable to a 6-year-old and that
would have had a devastating effect on the kind of interactions that
take place on the Internet."
But others were disappointed.
"It's a very frustrating decision. We have an epidemic problem of
kids accessing pornographic material online," said Donna Rice Hughes,
president of Enough is Enough, a nonprofit group that works to
protect children from pornography and online
predators. "Pornographers continue to get a free pass on the Internet
from our federal courts, and efforts by Congress keep getting
trumped."
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the United States attorney's office,
said the department was reviewing the 84-page opinion and deciding
whether to appeal.
Under the law, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, commercial Web
publishers would have been required to request credit card
information or other proof of age from Web site users to prevent
children from viewing material deemed "harmful to minors"
by "contemporary community standards." Penalties included a $50,000
fine and up to six months in prison.
Congress first tried to regulate online pornography in 1996 with the
Communications Decency Act, but that law that was struck down by the
Supreme Court the following year. In drafting the 1998 law, which was
signed by President Bill Clinton, lawmakers hoped to pass
constitutional muster, narrowing its aim by focusing on commercial
Web sites and defining objectionable material as obscene or that
which offends "contemporary community standards."
In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries
receiving certain federal money to use software filters. The high
court upheld that law in 2003.
Lawrence Lessig, a constitutional law professor at Stanford
University, said the case decided today indicates the shifting
stances that civil libertarians have taken regarding controls placed
on the Internet.
"Civil libertarians have long had a `love-hate' relationship with
filters," he said, adding that while the A.C.L.U. argued in this case
that filters are preferable, the organization has also voiced
concerns about them.
"People buy filters worried about pornography, but then they see they
can also block sports, politics and lots of other things, so they
block those, too," Professor Lessig said. "The result is to reinforce
this infrastructure of filters." That, he said, may lead to "less
free speech than we would have if the government could only get it
right in their approach to limiting pornography. "
Mr. Hansen said that his organization has only opposed the mandatory
use of filters, not filters themselves.
In arguing on behalf of the 2000 law, Justice Department lawyers
defended the use of filters. But in the case decided by Judge Reed,
who was appointed to the federal bench in 1988 by President Ronald
Reagan, Justice Department lawyers highlighted the inadequacies of
filters.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web
publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law
would have a chilling effect on free speech.
"We know from experience that putting up any barrier in front of your
content, whether its an advertisement or a subscription wall or
anything that delays someone's access, has a big impact on traffic,"
said Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.com.
In a post-trial brief, Peter D. Keisler, a government lawyer, argued
that depending solely on filters was insufficient. "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," he wrote.
The Associated Press contributed reporting for this article.
www.nytimes. com/2007/ 03/22/us/ 22cnd-porn. html?
_r=1&hp&oref= slogin
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
