American anti-porn law struck down
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article1554275.ece
Quote:
March 22, 2007
[size=12pt]American anti-porn law struck down[/size]
Times Online and AP
An American judge has struck down a law passed in 1998 by the US Government that made it a crime for commercial website operators to let children access “harmful†material.
The judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.
“Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection,†wrote Senior US District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.
The law would have required websites deemed harmful to children by “contemporary community standards†to ask for a credit card number or other proof of age before granting access. Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other websites backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law. They argued that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech.
The US Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.
AMEN.
The responsibility lies in the hands of PARENTS to protect their children - not big brother.
=Z=
Re: American anti-porn law struck down
"Zeus" wrote:
Quote:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article1554275.ece
Quote:
March 22, 2007
[size=12pt]American anti-porn law struck down[/size]
Times Online and AP
An American judge has struck down a law passed in 1998 by the US Government that made it a crime for commercial website operators to let children access “harmful†material.
The judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.
“Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection,†wrote Senior US District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.
The law would have required websites deemed harmful to children by “contemporary community standards†to ask for a credit card number or other proof of age before granting access. Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other websites backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law. They argued that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech.
The US Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.
AMEN.
The responsibility lies in the hands of PARENTS to protect their children - not big brother.
=Z=
Tell that to the fundies!
Those jerkwads think that civil laws are for enforcing moral issues!
Re: American anti-porn law struck down
"cajunvike" wrote:
Quote:
"Zeus" wrote:
Quote:
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article1554275.ece
Quote:
March 22, 2007
[size=12pt]American anti-porn law struck down[/size]
Times Online and AP
An American judge has struck down a law passed in 1998 by the US Government that made it a crime for commercial website operators to let children access “harmful†material.
The judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.
“Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection,†wrote Senior US District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.
The law would have required websites deemed harmful to children by “contemporary community standards†to ask for a credit card number or other proof of age before granting access. Penalties included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.
Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other websites backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law. They argued that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have had a chilling effect on speech.
The US Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.
AMEN.
The responsibility lies in the hands of PARENTS to protect their children - not big brother.
=Z=
Tell that to the fundies!
Those jerkwads think that civil laws are for enforcing moral issues!
AMEN BROTHER CAJUN!
