Ned
03-22-2007, 05:11 PM
I personally think this was a good ruling by the court. While I think true porn sites need some kind of control to keep children out of the sites to the extent possible, I don't think that this law was technologically or practically well written. It was extremely vague to start. It would have added huge barriers to web sites with porn, but also to web sites which handle sexual health issues, art involving nudes, etc. which should not have difficult entry. At the same time the law almost completely neglected usegroups which have some of the "worst" porn (unbelievable stuff actually) which can be found anywhere, on and off the Internet. I think it would have had a very negative effect on the free exchange of ideas by adults on anything having to do with sex and sexuality. The law went too far in some ways, and was neglectful in others.
Furthermore, if I were the parent of a young child or teen, I would be much more concerned with chat rooms, Internet meeting places, personal blog sites and networking sites like MySpace, on the Internet, where sexual predators frequent, than worrying about the kids seeing dirty photos. Those kind of sites were unaffected by the law.
Finally, the biggest shortcoming of the law was that it only applied to web sites physically located in the United States. When it comes to porn, the vast majority of sites are hosted off shore, especially in eastern Europe, the Phillipines, and Southeast Asia (Thailand mostly), than in the US, making the law even more ineffective than most people would have believed.
Court strikes down Internet porn law
(http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/03/22/internet.blocking.ap/index.html)
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) (Via CNN.com) -- A federal judge on Thursday 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 that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.
"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," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.
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...
Furthermore, if I were the parent of a young child or teen, I would be much more concerned with chat rooms, Internet meeting places, personal blog sites and networking sites like MySpace, on the Internet, where sexual predators frequent, than worrying about the kids seeing dirty photos. Those kind of sites were unaffected by the law.
Finally, the biggest shortcoming of the law was that it only applied to web sites physically located in the United States. When it comes to porn, the vast majority of sites are hosted off shore, especially in eastern Europe, the Phillipines, and Southeast Asia (Thailand mostly), than in the US, making the law even more ineffective than most people would have believed.
Court strikes down Internet porn law
(http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/03/22/internet.blocking.ap/index.html)
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) (Via CNN.com) -- A federal judge on Thursday 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 that do not limit the rights of others to free speech.
"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," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr., who presided over a four-week trial last fall.
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...