Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. has 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: "Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if (free speech) protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."
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 challenged the law arguing that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech. Technology experts said parents now have more serious concerns than Web sites with pornography, such as online predators on social-networking sites.
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.
News source: CNN
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 challenged the law arguing that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech. Technology experts said parents now have more serious concerns than Web sites with pornography, such as online predators on social-networking sites.
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.
News source: CNN
My god, I was beginning to lose hope in this country... It seems like everybody wants to place blame on somebody else. Hopefully this is a sign of change... Or maybe I'm just being a bit too optimistic.
I say that they should stay. They mean that a minor can't accidentally view inappropriate material. Just because it's not illegal any more doesn't mean they need to let anyone and everyone view the sites.
I say that they should stay. They mean that a minor can't accidentally view inappropriate material. Just because it's not illegal any more doesn't mean they need to let anyone and everyone view the sites.
I agree, they should stay.
Now, I wish instead of going back over what lawmakers do they'd go and actually do just and fair decisions on things that really matter and stop bowing down to the political bosses of our day ...
Since it's hard to enforce, and a warning page only tend to attract children (taboo psychology), I think this is alright. The most important part is that children visiting sites shouldn't be the responsibility of the site operators. They can just click past a warning page anyway, and then the site *will* let the children access it.
Well, it could be nice to have this to not have porn thrown right in your face if you happen to mistype a web address, but today it seems really hard to enforce anyway. As in, operators wishing to bring in ad revenue by hijacked domains put their servers outside the US and this legislation, and there you go.
I think the Judge made the right desicion in this case, freedom of speech must be protected and it's up to parents too "protect" their kids.
woah... thats deep...
i dun get it
Interesting....and would you like it if your mom/dad monitored your *every* move to make sure you weren't surfing for porn? Every waking minute?
Get real.
Interesting....and would you like it if your mom/dad monitored your *every* move to make sure you weren't surfing for porn? Every waking minute?
Get real.
You know... Go figure... When I was younger, my parents said this: "Don't do that." and you know what? I listened to them...
Yes, I do believe that telling your children to not do something can work. I also don't think that we should go after companies that make kitchen stoves because a child COULD burn their hand with it.
I couldn't agree more.
Get real.
Ya know, when I was a child, my parents monitored absolutely everything I did. They actually took the time to give a sh*t about what their children were doing. Most parents these days could care less what their children do as long as they're not being bothered.
but i do have to agree with what the judge said about ... "Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if (free speech) protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection"
i guess when is all said and done nothing will change and it's all on the parents as usual
p.s. im 27 years old.... but i aint got to worry to much myself since i dont plan on having kids anytime soon (if ever).
-----government has no place on the internet to be enforcing arbitrary rules. i don't care what right wing nut job you put into office.
I think that it's good that we recognize that it's not really a good thing for children to have free access to porn. Since it is so difficult for parents to get informed about how to effectivly monitor thier children's time, I have no problem with governments effecting laws to assist them. I don't see it as a shift in responsibility as a recognition that many parents are ill-equipped at this time. From what I see, the big downside to the 1998 laws was that there could potentially be less porn available on the internet, but it's not like we're running out of porn. Even in a worst case situation it looks like fair trade to me, a few less porn sites in exchange for keeping children away from porn. There's still more than enough porn to go around.
I currently have a pioneer stereo with the first gen ipod interface, and it's pretty terrible. Even the newer ones have their limits. I hope that this one delivers.
http://www.ipodconverter.com
True... many, if not even most, families aren't up to par when it comes to supervising what their children are doing online.
The problems I see with the Child Online Protection Act, creating the .xxx tld for porn, Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006. etc, etc is that they only focus on the "hot topic" of the day & completely ignore the majority of other potential online pitfalls. Those families that aren't up to par on the internet end up with a false sense of security when it comes to protecting their children from objectionable material.
Last edited by YaddaMe on 23 Mar 2007 - 16:34
If they really wanna stop children from being exposed to porn on... well, good luck. That boat sailed a long time ago, and it's not coming back.
Asking for a credit card number or some other proof of age isn't "going after porn sites", it is a reasonable way to make sure you don't have 8 year olds looking at stuff that 8 year olds have no business looking at. Most of you don't get that because your under the age of 21 and your hormones are out of control. I've been there. You just wait until you have little boys and girls of your own. Watch how your opinions change.
it might not be going after porn sites, but it's just not right to actually be forced to give your credit card number if you want to access the site.
if you're worried about your children, just care for them: browse the web with them together, and do whatever you want.
then again (not speaking for the majority of minors) I do have a credit card, its pre-paid, but it validates all the age validators I have tried... not many, but still...
Glassed Silver:mac
i bet it doesnt, i BET...
Glassed Silver:mac
This is the equivalent of allowing porn channels on TV, allowing kids to purchase porn mags in stores, and even allowing them to go into adult video/toy stores and strip clubs. Next thing you know it will be on billboards.
We do need some regulations where porn is concerned, it will be darn near impossible to keep your kids away from these sites. And how many of you grew up in an environment (or would want to) where your parents were able to monitor you 100% of the time. It's not feasible or desirable. It would be like being afraid to let your kids going outside to play because of people having sex in public.
Think of the consequences people. As a young boy, I might have thought the same thing. But today I know better. It's a shame the judge doesn't.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.