Another One Bites the Dust (The Internet Lives)

[Guest Spunk]

Judges Throw Out Online Porn Law

Ruling: Libraries Can't Be Forced to Install Filters

 

By DAVID B. CARUSO

.c The Associated Press

 

PHILADELPHIA (May 31) - A three-judge panel Friday struck down Congress' third and latest attempt to shield children from Internet porn, ruling that public libraries cannot be forced to install software that blocks sexually explicit Web sites.

 

The federal panel unanimously found that the Children's Internet Protection Act relies on filtering programs that also block sites on politics, health, science and other topics that should not be suppressed.

 

``Given the crudeness of filtering technology, any technology protection measure mandated by CIPA will necessarily block access to a substantial amount of speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest,'' the judges wrote.

 

Three times since 1996, Congress has enacted laws aimed at keeping youngsters from seeing Internet porn. And all three have been struck down.

 

The latest law, signed by President Clinton in 2000, was supposed to go into effect July 1. It would require public libraries receiving federal technology funds to install the filters on their computers or risk losing that aid. Schools and school libraries are still subject to the law.

 

Barbara Comstock, spokeswoman for Attorney General John Ashcroft, said the Justice Department is disappointed and may appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

Conservatives said the ruling ties the hands of parents trying to protect children. ``These groups are more concerned with providing access to smut than they are protecting child patrons and employees,'' said Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council.

 

The ruling was welcomed by the American Library Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, which had argued that the law would make it tougher for people without home computers to get information on topics such as breast cancer and homosexuality, which are sometimes accidentally blocked by the filters.

 

``It is certainly my hope that now that Congress has taken three strikes, it will get out of the business,'' said Stefan Presser, the ACLU's legal director in Pennsylvania.

 

Echoing earlier court decisions, the three-judge panel wrote that the Internet is an open public forum and that any move to exclude certain content must be narrowly tailored.

 

It said there are less restrictive ways than software filtering of shielding children from Internet porn. It said those options include requiring parental consent before a minor is allowed to use an unfiltered computer, or requiring a parent to be present while a child surfs the Net.

 

The law would have allowed adults to ask that the filtering technology be turned off. But the court held that some library patrons might be embarrassed by having to ask, and some librarians may not have the technical expertise to comply with such a request.

 

Justice Department lawyers had argued that Internet smut is so pervasive that protections are necessary to keep it away from youngsters, and that the law simply calls for libraries to use the same care in selecting online content that they use for books and magazines.

 

They also pointed out that libraries could turn down federal funding if they want to provide unfiltered Web access.

 

The ruling was the latest in a string of setbacks for Congress in its attempts to shield children from Internet porn.

 

The 1996 Communications Decency Act, which made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

 

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act required Web sites to collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed ``harmful to minors.'' A federal appeals court struck it down as too broad. The Supreme Court partially upheld the law in May but did not rule on its constitutionality as a whole.

 

The challenge to the latest law was heard by 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edward R. Becker and U.S. District Judges John P. Fullam and Harvey Bartle III.

 

The law contained language specifying that three federal judges would hear any challenges, and that any appeals from there would go directly to the Supreme Court.

 

Lawmakers said they will continue to work to craft an acceptable law.

 

``We will go back and look at the language. We will hopefully come up with the right kind of language that will pass muster for the courts,'' said Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Texas. ``We have got to find a way to protect children.''

 

In April, the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of a 1996 child pornography law that would ban computer simulations of children having sex, saying it called into question legitimate educational or artistic depictions of youthful sex.

[+ deej]

It still amazes me that Congress is trying to regulate the internet (which knows no geographical or political boundary). They simply have no jurisdiction. I knew CIPA wouldn't last the first time I read it.

 

Eastern Block countries tried to regulate the internet, and it didn't work. The internet and the free flow of information was arguably a major player in the fall of the iron curtain.

 

Don't get me wrong! I'm all for protecting a child from porn if that's what their parents want but that's up to the parents! Passing a law against it in the US won't stop a site in Belgium or Germany.

 

It's another example of "Ugly American" syndrome. Congress passes legislation that's popular with Joe America without considering that it's a completely toothless piece of legislation because THEY DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION AND CAN'T ENFORCE IT!

 

Bleh.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>I'm all for protecting a child from porn

>if that's what their parents want but that's up to the

>parents! Passing a law against it in the US won't stop a

>site in Belgium or Germany.

 

I think the problem with children viewing adult porn on the net is a direct result of their parents using a computer in place of a baby sitter. They are too damn lazy to supervise their kids so they expect the rest of the world to tolerate censorship just so their little darlin's don't get an eyefull.

 

Put the computer in the kitchen so mom can supervise. And if that isn't enough, buy a cordless keyboard & mouse so they can be locked away when supervision isn't possible. Or - for that matter - lock the frigin computer.

 

Thunderbuns

[SaTxTop]

Even simpler is to lock away the power cord. ;-)