MistressValerie1
Administrator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 8,736
- Points
- 0
By the narrowest of decisions, the US Supreme Court voted today, 5-4, to continue the injunction against enforcement of the sweeping Internet censorship law deceptively called the "Children's Online Protection Act."
This law, if imposed, would require that all sites with content unsuitable for children be guarded by expensive, intrusive adult verification schemes which would compel users to provide personally identifiable information before being allowed to view mature content.
As noted by the Court, adult passport schemes are easily bypassed by any minor with a credit card, and are less effective than filtering software in keeping young people from potential harm. Further, they are expensive, usually costing $60 or more per year per user. Adult passport operators would also have your personal and financial information and could sell it to spammers or hard-core site operators. Worst of all, law enforcement could easily obtain such centralised lists of adult-site visitors for "fishing expeditions," data collection, and general harrassment and intimidation.
This horrible, poorly written law would have probably caused the liability-conscious free group providers like Yahoo and MSN to close down their money-losing adult groups rather than risk prosecution under vague definitions of "commercial" websites and uncertain protections for "non-commercial" user-created clubs and forums.
Despite the best efforts of the Ashcroft "Justice" Department, free speech was given another lease on life -- at least for now.
Love and liberty,
Valerie Sonn and Wildcat Holmes
*****
Excerpts from article at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._go_su_co/scotus_online_porn&cid=558&ncid=716
"Filters are less restrictive" and thus pose less risk of muzzling free speech, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "They impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source."
The court majority said that the federal judge who initially blocked the Child Online Protection Act six years ago rightly found that the law was probably unconstitutional.
"There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech" if the law takes effect, Kennedy wrote.
Although free speech advocates had hoped the court would strike down the law outright, they said they were pleased with Tuesday's ruling.
"The status quo is still with us," ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said. "The court made it safe for artists, sex educators and Web publishers to communicate with adults without risking jail time."
*****
Full text of ruling: http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/040629ashcroft.pdf
Ashcroft v. ACLU, 03-218
This law, if imposed, would require that all sites with content unsuitable for children be guarded by expensive, intrusive adult verification schemes which would compel users to provide personally identifiable information before being allowed to view mature content.
As noted by the Court, adult passport schemes are easily bypassed by any minor with a credit card, and are less effective than filtering software in keeping young people from potential harm. Further, they are expensive, usually costing $60 or more per year per user. Adult passport operators would also have your personal and financial information and could sell it to spammers or hard-core site operators. Worst of all, law enforcement could easily obtain such centralised lists of adult-site visitors for "fishing expeditions," data collection, and general harrassment and intimidation.
This horrible, poorly written law would have probably caused the liability-conscious free group providers like Yahoo and MSN to close down their money-losing adult groups rather than risk prosecution under vague definitions of "commercial" websites and uncertain protections for "non-commercial" user-created clubs and forums.
Despite the best efforts of the Ashcroft "Justice" Department, free speech was given another lease on life -- at least for now.
Love and liberty,
Valerie Sonn and Wildcat Holmes
*****
Excerpts from article at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._go_su_co/scotus_online_porn&cid=558&ncid=716
"Filters are less restrictive" and thus pose less risk of muzzling free speech, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. "They impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source."
The court majority said that the federal judge who initially blocked the Child Online Protection Act six years ago rightly found that the law was probably unconstitutional.
"There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech" if the law takes effect, Kennedy wrote.
Although free speech advocates had hoped the court would strike down the law outright, they said they were pleased with Tuesday's ruling.
"The status quo is still with us," ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said. "The court made it safe for artists, sex educators and Web publishers to communicate with adults without risking jail time."
*****
Full text of ruling: http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/040629ashcroft.pdf
Ashcroft v. ACLU, 03-218
