|
|
Forum: Old Message Board
Thread (Discussion): supremes to hear 'net porn law - Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law
Message 118217
supremes to hear 'net porn law
Posted by x_simon
on Oct 14, 2003 12:29 PM | Also by x_simon
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=KPPKJAS4QSKIACRBAELCFFA?type=internetNews&storyID=3610996
Internet Porn Law to Be Decided by Supreme Court
Tue October 14, 2003 11:00 AM ET
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would decide whether a law aimed at protecting minors from Internet pornography violated constitutional free-speech rights.
The high court agreed to hear a Justice Department appeal defending the law in a case that has pitted free-speech rights against the efforts by Congress to regulate cyberspace by keeping minors away from online pornography.
The Child Online Protection Act required Web site operators to make Internet viewers use credit cards or adult access systems before they could see material deemed harmful to minors. Violators faced up to six months in prison and fines.
The 1998 law has never been enforced. It was challenged on First Amendment grounds by the American Civil Liberties Union, online magazine publishers, booksellers and others, and the courts have blocked the government from enforcing the law.
It will be the second time the Supreme Court has considered the law. The justices in 2002 sent the case back to a U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia without deciding the free-speech issues at the heart of the law.
Congress came up with the law in another effort to regulate access by minors to Internet pornography after the Supreme Court in 1997 struck down on free-speech grounds the Communications Decency Act.
The case now before the Supreme Court stemmed from an appeals court ruling that declared the law unconstitutional.
The appeals court ruled the law would require Web site operators to engage in self-censorship, restricting lawful speech for adults, to avoid criminal prosecution. It held the law was too broad and too vague.
FILTERING SOFTWARE
The appeals court said the screening methods, including requiring Web-page viewers to give a credit card number, would unfairly require adults to identify themselves before they can see constitutionally protected material such as medical sites offering sex advice.
It concluded filtering software would be a less restrictive alternative to prevent access by minors to harmful material.
In appealing, Solicitor General Theodore Olson of the Justice Department said the ruling "leaves minors unprotected from the harmful effects of the enormous amount of pornography on the World Wide Web."
He said the law had been modeled after "state laws that require local stores to place pornographic material that is harmful to minors behind blinder racks, in sealed wrappers or in opaque covers."
Olson described the use of a valid credit card or an adult identification system as a "reasonable burden ... to serve the compelling interest in protecting minors from pornography."
Ann Beeson of the American Civil Liberties Union urged the high court to reject the government's appeal.
The law would suppress a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to communicate and receive online, she said, adding that the law would cover popular Web-based chat rooms and discussion boards on sexual topics.
Beeson said federal courts have struck down seven state laws that were nearly identical to the federal one.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case early next year, with a decision due by the end of June.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 118230 (In Reply to Message 118217)
Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 14, 2003 03:11 PM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
I would guess that once again the SC will rule the law to be unconstitutional.
IMHO.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118217)
Message 118232 (In Reply to Message 118230)
Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law
Posted by x_Silverthorne
on Oct 14, 2003 03:38 PM | Also by x_Silverthorne
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
I agree. They're being overzealous here. There are many websites dealing with medical matters that would be censored.
What about people without credit cards?
Silverthorne
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118230)
Message 118244 (In Reply to Message 118232)
Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 14, 2003 07:10 PM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
Right. I don't have one. Don't have a home phone, either. My cell phone is in the name of my business. I'm a "non-person" as far as the Net goes, which is why my name will never show up in a search engine, in the MSN White Pages or in any other of the people-finder sites. I'd like to keep it that way. But if I were one who frequented adult sites, I would have to choose between that privacy and my desire to look at the sites.
Nobody should be required to surrender privacy in order to exercise a constitutional right. That would be a contradiction.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118232)
Message 118251 (In Reply to Message 118244)
Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 14, 2003 08:35 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
>
> Right. I don't have one. Don't have a home phone, either. My
> cell phone is in the name of my business. I'm a "non-person"
> as far as the Net goes, which is why my name will never show
> up in a search engine, in the MSN White Pages or in any other
> of the people-finder sites. I'd like to keep it that way. But
> if I were one who frequented adult sites, I would have to
> choose between that privacy and my desire to look at the sites.
No you wouldn't. Most quality sites offer multiple forms of payment, e.g., paypal, ibill, with a check, etc. all of which are performed discretely. But even if this weren't the case, come on, where in the constitution does it say that the government has to bend over backward to make sure free speech is protected? The standard for free speech protection is that there must not be an undue burden placed on one kind of speech because of its content. That a tiny percentage of porn site customers could not gain access because they don't have a credit card and personal phone number would not, in my opinion, be an undue burden on the operators of these sites. What, would they lose half of a hundredth of their business?
> Nobody should be required to surrender privacy in order to
> exercise a constitutional right. That would be a contradiction.
That's funny. People surrender privacy to exercise constitutional rights all the time: getting a state I.D. and social security #, providing identification to get a library card, getting permits to demonstrate for a cause, etc. The only requirement (in this case) is that the burden not rise to the level of dampening free speech, i.e. make it such that the operators of sites with sexual content can no longer keep running their websites. In the case of sites that are offering free anatomical or medical information, I can see the undue burden, but in regards to pornography, I do not, especially if one argues that there is a highly compelling state interest in keeping web pornography from children.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118244)
Message 118274 (In Reply to Message 118251)
Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law
Posted by x_orolan
on Oct 15, 2003 10:31 AM | Also by x_orolan
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
"Most quality sites offer multiple forms of payment, e.g., paypal, ibill, with a check, etc. all of which are performed discretely"
These require a checking account(don't have and won't have one of those either)
"there must not be an undue burden placed on one kind of speech because of its content"
The overall issue here is that ALL persons would have to provide their credit card numbers. So the "burden" isn't on the few who don't have them, it's on all the others who do.
And the issue isn't about the operator's ability to dispense the "free speech". It's about the individual's ability to see it.
To avoid an "undue" burden due to content, credit card info would have to be required to view EVERYTHING. That would be fair and equitable, applied regardless of the content to be viewed.
"getting a state I.D. and social security #"
These are requirements by statute. Most states require ID, and the Fed requires SS#'s. They are far from being a voluntary surrendering of privacy.
"providing identification to get a library card"
Stretching it a little, aren't you? Remember, a person can go to the library and read the books without ever getting a library card. They just can't take it home. So nobody is "required" to surrender privacy to exercise their right to read the books.
"getting permits to demonstrate for a cause"
Note that this, along with your other examples, all involve dealings between individuals and the government. They have nothing to do with private dealings between two individuals, or an individual and a business. For the most part, they are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Now if the government decides that you have to put your VISA card number across the top of your placard and show it while you protest, what then?
"make it such that the operators of sites with sexual content can no longer keep running their websites"
Again, the issue is a person's ability to see the content without an undue invasion of his or her privacy, not the site operator's ability to display the content.
"a highly compelling state interest in keeping web pornography from children."
The number one recommended method to prevent children from viewing pornography on the Net is for the parents to monitor the activity. Number two is screening software like Net Nanny. So if there is such a "compelling interest", how about a law requiring that all access by children be in the presence of an adult? Wait, that would unfairly burden the parents, and be unconstitutional. Or would it? Or maybe the government needs to require screening software on all computers used by a child, even in private homes? Or are we back to an unconstitutional "undue burden"?
And in closing, we get back to that jurisdiction question we debated way back. Will we be sending the FBI to Sri Lanka to apprehend a site operator because he refused to put an age verification procedure on his site and some poor 15 year-old boy seems to have "accidentally" stumbled upon reallybighooters.com while searching for data on the Roman Empire?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118251)
Message 118290 (In Reply to Message 118274)
Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law
Posted by x_marta
on Oct 15, 2003 07:59 PM | Also by x_marta
| Gender: ,
Age Bracket: ,
State: ,
Country: |
orolan wrote:
>
> "Most quality sites offer multiple forms of payment, e.g.,
> paypal, ibill, with a check, etc. all of which are performed
> discretely"
> These require a checking account(don't have and won't have
> one of those either)
So just how would you pay to see porn sites that charge? Not at all? Are you saying that you only look at free porn? If so, no credit card need come into it. They could simply require a driver's license or S.S. #
> "there must not be an undue burden placed on one kind of
> speech because of its content"
> The overall issue here is that ALL persons would have to
> provide their credit card numbers. So the "burden" isn't on
> the few who don't have them, it's on all the others who do.
And I am arguing that mandating submission of age verification is not a burden that rises to the level of dampening free speech. Most porn sites, paid or otherwise, would have no problem continuing to run, even if some sort of age verification were required.
> And the issue isn't about the operator's ability to dispense
> the "free speech". It's about the individual's ability to see
> it.
I am aware of this (argh!). And the argument is that from this side of the free speech exchange, the government has a highly compelling interest in keeping pornography from children.
> "getting a state I.D. and social security #"
> These are requirements by statute. Most states require ID,
> and the Fed requires SS#'s. They are far from being a
> voluntary surrendering of privacy.
Tell that to the libertarians who have neither.
> "providing identification to get a library card"
> Stretching it a little, aren't you? Remember, a person can go
> to the library and read the books without ever getting a
> library card. They just can't take it home. So nobody is
> "required" to surrender privacy to exercise their right to
> read the books.
By the same logic, a person can buy a porn mag./video, with cash, and not give any personal info to anyone as well.
> "getting permits to demonstrate for a cause"
> Note that this, along with your other examples, all involve
> dealings between individuals and the government. They have
> nothing to do with private dealings between two individuals,
> or an individual and a business.
Your argument being . . .. Perhaps that the government can limit constitutional rights where it demonstrates a compelling interest? That's actually the reason for the listed examples. Individual liberties, even those granted by the constitution, are not infinite: they end where the government demonstrates that it has a compelling interest in limiting them in the course of carrying out its duty.
In my mind, the ultimate argument against COPA isn't the burdening free speech one, it's that the government cannot demonstrate a compelling interest in keeping children from seeing pornography. Such an interest is not within the role of government.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (118274)
Thread
118217, x_simon, Oct 14, 2003 12:29 PM [supremes to hear 'net porn law]
118230, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 03:11 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
118232, x_Silverthorne, Oct 14, 2003 03:38 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
118244, x_orolan, Oct 14, 2003 07:10 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
118251, x_marta, Oct 14, 2003 08:35 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
118274, x_orolan, Oct 15, 2003 10:31 AM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn law]
118290, x_marta, Oct 15, 2003 07:59 PM [Re: supremes to hear 'net porn...]
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
