Court Strikes Down Online Porn Law

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-online-porn,0,1315778.st
ory?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnationworld%2Dheadlines

Court Strikes Down Online Porn Law
By DAVID B. CARUSO
Associated Press Writer

March 7, 2003, 3:16 AM EST

PHILADELPHIA -- A federal appeals court has ruled that a law meant to
safeguard children against Internet pornography is riddled with problems
that make it "constitutionally infirm."
A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday
that the Child Online Protection Act restricted free speech by barring Web
page operators from posting information inappropriate for minors unless they
limited the site to adults. The ruling upheld an injunction blocking the
government from enforcing the law.
The court said that in practice, the law made it too difficult for adults to
view material protected by the First Amendment, including many
non-pornographic sites.
The law, signed by President Clinton and endorsed by President Bush, has
never been enforced. It is one of several relating to Internet decency that
courts have struck down.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which initiated the legal challenge,
praised Thursday's ruling.
"It's clear that the law would make it a crime to communicate a whole range
of information to adults," said ACLU associate legal director Ann Beeson.
Calls to the Justice Department, which had argued in favor of the law, were
not immediately returned. The government may ask the 3rd Circuit to rehear
the case or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Previously, the 3rd Circuit had ruled the law unconstitutional on grounds
that it allowed the legality of Internet content to be judged by
"contemporary community standards."
On appeal, the Supreme Court said that evaluation standard alone did not
make the law unconstitutional, and sent the case back for further
evaluation. 
In Thursday's opinion, the court said that in seeking to define material
harmful to minors, the law made no distinction between things inappropriate
for a 5-year-old and things harmful to someone in their early teens.
The judges said that while the law sought to get around free-speech
arguments by making the restrictions apply only to Web operators who posted
material for "commercial purposes," it didn't address what level of
profitability was required.
The court also said screening methods suggested by the government, including
requiring Web-page viewers to give a credit card number, would unfairly
require adults to identify themselves before viewing constitutionally
protected material such as medical sites offering sex advice.
* __ 
On the Net: 
3rd U.S. Court of Appeals: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov 

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/