?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
13 August 2003 @ 09:52 am
the man seems determined to piss me off  


Court urged to reinstate online porn law


- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Gina Holland


Aug. 13, 2003 |

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to reinstate a law that punishes Web site operators who expose children to dirty pictures and other inappropriate material.

The court has already sided with the government once this year in its war against online smut, ruling that Congress can require public libraries that receive federal funding to equip computers with anti-pornography filters.

In an appeal filed Monday, Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the filter technology alone is not enough. Children are "unprotected from the harmful effects of the enormous amount of pornography on the World Wide Web,'' he told justices.

The broader law at issue now requires that operators of commercial Internet sites use credit cards or some form of adults-only screening system to ensure children cannot see material deemed harmful to them. Operators could face fines and jail time for not complying.

Critics contend the law violates the rights of adults to see or buy what they want on the Internet.

Olson said the main target was commercial pornographers who use sexually explicit "teasers'' to lure customers.

A Philadelphia-based appeals court has twice ruled that the 1998 law, known as the Child Online Protection Act, unconstitutionally restricts speech. The law has been on hold since it was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of artists, book stores and others who put information on the Web.

The Supreme Court has reviewed the law once. The justices were splintered in a 2002 ruling that sent the case back to the court in Philadelphia for more consideration of the First Amendment implications.

Jonathan Zittrain, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in Internet law, said Tuesday that the high court will likely struggle again with what to do. "From the government's view, it can't hurt to appeal because it's essentially a roulette wheel,'' he said.

Zittrain predicted that the government will have a tougher time than it did persuading the high court to uphold the library filter law. The government argued in its filing that the cases are similar.

ACLU associate legal director Ann Beeson said the laws are very different because the 1998 statute involves criminal penalties for people who exercise free speech rights.

"I would have thought the Justice Department would have better things to do with its time than to defend what is clearly an unconstitutional law,'' she said.

The case is Ashcroft v. ACLU, 03-218.
 
 
 
KJVkjv31 on August 13th, 2003 09:59 am (UTC)
Bushwhacked Ag'in.
This, once again, is the retarded morality of the religious right clouded in "doing it for the children" rhetoric. I CANNOT STAND ONE MORE MINUTE OF THIS ADMINISTRATION!! Go ACLU!
Anna S.eliade on August 13th, 2003 02:57 pm (UTC)
Re: Bushwhacked Ag'in.
I CANNOT STAND ONE MORE MINUTE OF THIS ADMINISTRATION!!

It's hard to imagine anyone who can. If all goes well, I'll be voting Howard Dean in the next election. For the children.

Of course, at this point I'd vote for Carrot Top before I'd vote for Bush.
(Deleted comment)
Angel: zoovalarltd on August 13th, 2003 12:07 pm (UTC)
I'm of the opinion if the administration REALLY cared about kids, the schools would have all the money they need, Headstart wouldn't have been gutted, minimal health insurance would be instituted for every child, and a living wage would be paid to families. We'd have the financial ability for moms to stay home during the first year of a child's life.

But, no, far more important to protect them from porn and drugs, while they grow up hungry and ignorant.
(Deleted comment)
Sophia: aeryn (bitchy)sophia_helix on August 13th, 2003 11:08 am (UTC)
'Cause the NRA, alcohol companies and tobacco companies have more lobbying money and power than the porn industry, and apparently it's only okay for the government to do business with drug dealers.

Money. Blech.

.m
rubywisp: angel by green_luvrubywisp on August 13th, 2003 10:07 am (UTC)
Fucking asshats.

As the mother of a 12 yo boy who discovered his aunt's PPV porn earlier this year, and with cable internet access, I say: It's *my* job to keep my kids from being exposed to porn, not the government's. TV, movies, books, songs, porn... *my* job. Back the fuck off, already.
Erin: Gnawtingler on August 13th, 2003 12:33 pm (UTC)
As the parent of six kids of both genders and a wide range of ages, all I can say to all of the above is "Amen, sistuhs!" While I do believe it is despicable and unconscionable for porn-peddlers to try to force their product on us (and I just don't believe that they don't get plenty enough people seeking them out on their own), I firmly believe it is my job to watch over my kids and to at least give them enough grounding that they wouldn't be too scarred if they do accidentally come across some of that. (And as to "that", how come I never get spam offering to let me see two or more pretty boys going at it? How about that, huh?)
(Anonymous) on August 13th, 2003 01:44 pm (UTC)
Hi I hope it's ok, that I join this discussion

I don't understand how the Us gorvernment, is going to impose their laws on global network. Except if they will copy the system, that China and Saudi Arabia uses, with controlled filtered government internet feed from server that are outside their own country. In my country ( Denmark ), porno is not viewed as big problem. Children can buy porno magazines, but the magazine must placed in the shop, at a height that are least 170 cm high. It's kind of ironic that many porno magazines has been closed, because it's so easy to find free porn on internet.

Lakrids
lund9000@sol.dk
vi, miss vylit if you're nastyvylit on August 13th, 2003 04:16 pm (UTC)
I'm seriously afraid of what the United States will be like if he is elected again. If you have AOL you can program in your own filters for you child's account, and like someone said earlier, it's a parents' responsibility--not the government.