Child Porn Ruling, isn't

[Gonzo]

It's getting harder & harder to get a straight answer out of the US Supreme Court. In yesterdays ruling, they said the Online Child Protection Act was a good start & sent it back to the lower courts to make another ruling.

By Joan Biskupic
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday gave life to the U.S. government's effort to make it a crime to put sexually explicit pictures on the Internet where they can be seen by children. But the justices made clear that constitutional hurdles could keep the law from being enforced.

The justices voted 8-1 to throw out an appeals court ruling that said the 1998 Child Online Protection Act violates free-speech rights because it relies on ''community standards'' to identify what online materials are harmful to minors.

The U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia had said that standard, which has been used by courts for nearly three decades to determine whether hard-core materials can be restricted locally, could not work on the Internet. The appeals court said that because online content can be viewed from virtually anywhere in the USA, the 1998 law would force materials to be subject to the standards of the most conservative communities.

But Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the law's use of community standards to identify ''material that is harmful to minors'' does not necessarily make the statute unconstitutional. The justices returned the case to lower courts for hearings on whether the act, which targets information on Web sites but not in e-mails or chat rooms, violates adult free speech rights.

and

Free speech vs. child protection

The Supreme Court's ruling Monday was the latest chapter in the ongoing debate over how to balance free speech rights with the desire to keep children from accessing online pornography. Key points in the conflict:


1996 -- Congress passes the Communications Decency Act, which makes it a crime to send obscene or indecent messages over the Internet to anyone under 18.


1997 -- Supreme Court strikes down the act, calling it too vague and broad.


1998 -- Congress, trying to address the court's concerns, passes the Child Online Protection Act. The law targets ''material that is harmful to minors'' and applies only to World Wide Web sites, not e-mail or chat rooms. It also covers only communications used ''for commercial purposes'' and lowers the age of the children protected to under 17. The American Civil Liberties Union and online publishers challenge the law, saying it violates free speech rights.


2000 -- U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia strikes down the act, objecting to its reliance on ''community standards.'' Part of the act defines the materials to be banned as those that ''the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find . . . designed to appeal to . . . the prurient interest.''


Monday -- The U.S. Supreme Court rules that using community standards to identify ''material that is harmful to minors'' does not, by itself, make the statute too broad for First Amendment purposes.
Source: USA TODAY research by Joan Biskupic

 

[Professur]

Remember my old argument. What's the difference between kiddie porn and a nudist's summer holiday photos?



The viewer.