Ashcroft v. ACLU - US Supreme Court & Child Online Protection Act

[Pookie]

ACLU Returns to Supreme Court in Renewed Challenge to Internet Censorship Law

March 2, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON -The American Civil Liberties Union returned to the Supreme Court today to argue against an Internet censorship law that blocks legal and valuable online speech for adults without protecting minors from potentially harmful material.

The Court first blocked enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act in 2001 in response to an ACLU challenge, but sent the case back for further review. Today’s case revisits the same challenge, following a second appeals court decision rejecting the law.

"The Child Online Protection Act makes it a crime to communicate a whole range of information to adults and is ineffective at keeping children from material many people would agree is objectionable," said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU, who argued the case in 2001 and appeared before the Justices again today.

"Although the government claims the censorship law is necessary to protect minors, it has not even used all of the tools currently available to protect them from sexually explicit content," she added.

Despite long-standing federal obscenity laws, the ACLU noted in its brief, the government has prosecuted only a handful of obscenity cases in the last 25 years, thus failing to protect minors from materials that are obscene even for adults. Other effective means that have been implemented include the mandated use of blocking software in schools and public libraries as well as the creation of a safe online environment for children using the ".kids" domain.

The Child Online Protection Act imposes draconian criminal sanctions, with penalties of up to $50,000 per day and up to six months imprisonment, for material judged "harmful to minors."

The speech that is criminalized under the law includes sexual advice and education, web-based chat rooms and discussion boards involving sexual topics, and websites for bookstores, art galleries and the news media.

Dr. Mitch Tepper, an ACLU client who attended today’s argument, said he fears that some communities will be offended by material on his website, which provides sex information for the disabled including articles such as "Sex Toys and Where to Purchase Them," and "Hands-Free Whoopie."

"While a government attorney in Washington might say my website is not ‘harmful to minors,’ a prosecutor in some other community may think differently, and as a result I could wind up in jail and bankrupt from huge fines," Dr. Tepper said.

Briefs supporting the ACLU challenge were filed by a broad range of mainstream media and arts organizations, including the Association of American Publishers, American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Recording Industry Association of America and Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts.

COPA represents Congress’ second attempt to impose severe criminal and civil sanctions on the display of protected, non-obscene speech on the Internet. A first attempt, the Communications Decency Act of 1996, was declared unconstitutional by all nine justice of the Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU.

COPA was passed by Congress in 1998 in an attempt to replace the earlier law and was first considered by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. ACLU in 2001. The Court kept a ban on the law in place and sent the case back to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for further evaluation. In March 2003, the appeals court again found the statute unconstitutional, saying that the law would block lawful and valuable speech for adults.

In addition to Beeson, ACLU attorneys in the case are Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro, Christopher Hansen and Sharon McGowan of the national office, and Stefan Presser, Legal Director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. Christopher R. Harris, Michele M. Pyle, and Mark H. Goldberg are volunteer attorneys from the law firm Latham & Watkins in New York City; David Sobel of Electronic Privacy Information Center and Lee Tien of Electronic Frontier Foundation are co-counsel.

Today’s case is Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 03-218.

An ACLU web feature about the case, including links to legal papers and a "slideshow" of web sites that would be censored under the law is online at http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=15079&c=130

Source: http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=15143&c=252

COPA has been banned from being enforced for some time now. Literotica and authors who post erotic stories would be affected by this law if the ban on enforcement were ever lifted. In all likelihood, the US Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional. But until that occurs, it remains a threat to freedom of speech on the internet.

 

[Pure]

Thanks for the update, pookie.

It looks like the effort is to get some thing decided before too many Texas, Mississippi and Florida judges get onto the Supreme Court. I believe Pickering is in line.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thank you pookie,

I wasn't even aware that Asscroft had his little pin head back in the censorship bussiness already. Someone really needs to slap that moron down.

-Colly

 

[Boxlicker101]

Thank you pookie,

I wasn't even aware that Asscroft had his little pin head back in the censorship bussiness already. Someone really needs to slap that moron down.

-Colly

Asscroft was so unpopular, even in his home state, that he lost an election to a dead man. He has ALWAYS been in the cencorship business, thinking it is one of his duties to tell everybody what to read and to think. In his own way, he is worse than Khomeini or Bin Ladin or any other religious fanatic. Whatever other issues there might be in the Bush vs. (probably) Kerry election, getting rid of this cretin would be enough reason to vote for Kerry, if any more were needed.

 

[hiddenself]

Just a reminder:
Whatever the political issues and Ashcroft bashing aside, COPA was passed during the Clinton years and with support from many Democrats.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Just a reminder:
Whatever the political issues and Ashcroft bashing aside, COPA was passed during the Clinton years and with support from many Democrats.

I know he isn't personally responsible HS. He is just named because he is the AG. It isn't like he is makingup legislation, but he does have wide powers in deciding which legislation is agressively enforeced and which legislation is given the blaze routine and the ones he strongly advocates are always themost invasive and plice stateish.

-Colly

 

[Boxlicker101]

I know he isn't personally responsible HS. He is just named because he is the AG. It isn't like he is makingup legislation, but he does have wide powers in deciding which legislation is agressively enforeced and which legislation is given the blaze routine and the ones he strongly advocates are always themost invasive and plice stateish.

-Colly

It's entirely possible that the house passed the bill with a "poison pill" imbedded in it. By that I mean that they wanted to look good by voting for something popular even though they knew it would never pass constitutional muster and would be stricken by the courts. Asscroft, being an idiot besides being a fanatic, is trying to enforce an unenforceable law, and scaring some people and putting some through a lot of hardship.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It's entirely possible that the house passed the bill with a "poison pill" imbedded in it. By that I mean that they wanted to look good by voting for something popular even though they knew it would never pass constitutional muster and would be stricken by the courts. Asscroft, being an idiot besides being a fanatic, is trying to enforce an unenforceable law, and scaring some people and putting some through a lot of hardship.

The problem with that theory is that noone can know what will or won't pass judicial review. It is far more likely that the bill was passed in the heat of the moment and that the courts responded by saying it was unconstituional.

Asscroft is very good at trying to enforce unconstituional laws. And seizing hte medical records of women who have had abortions and anything else he can do to intimidate and cow the populace into submission.

Unless my impression is seriously off by reading too much of theliberal media the man is a Himmler just looking for a place to happen.

-Colly

 

[snooper]

The problem with that theory is that noone can know what will or won't pass judicial review.

This is always true everywhere.

What is so silly about this law is that it just guarantees exporting highly lucrative (and tax paying) businesses to countries that do not have such a law. Legislatures round the world have not yet understood that the Internet does not have any corporate existence. Only sites exists, and service providers. If a site in (say) the USA allows users in (say) China to access information which is public domain and fully legal in the USA, but which is a State Secret in China, then the relaying ISP in Japan is really the entity the Chinese wish to prosecute, but all laws are valid only in the countries in which they are enacted.

In spite of many attempts to do so, the US Legislature cannot make laws which are enforceable in other countries, short of invading and annexing those countries.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The word is that the Bush administration is all set to start going after pornography and is only waiting till the election is over before releasing the dogs. Government prosecution of porn has languished since Ed Meese's attempts back in the Reagen administration, and the Right feels they have a bunch of new tools they’re eager to use, including the Supreme Court, who they feel will be more sympathetic now than it was back in the Reagan days. Ashcroft is very active in leading this movement.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

What I've learned to admire most about Colly is that, whatever the issue, she takes the time to consider all sides, acknowledges the validity of divergent opinons, and then expresses her own view in clear, measured terms:

I wasn't even aware that Asscroft had his little pin head back in the censorship bussiness already. Someone really needs to slap that moron down.

-Colly

You said it, sister.

 

[shereads]

The word is that the Bush administration is all set to start going after pornography and is only waiting till the election is over before releasing the dogs. Government prosecution of porn has languished since Ed Meese's attempts back in the Reagen administration, and the Right feels they have a bunch of new tools they’re eager to use, including the Supreme Court, who they feel will be more sympathetic now than it was back in the Reagan days. Ashcroft is very active in leading this movement.

---dr.M.

Whatever anyone's motives for wanting to censor the internet, it has to be an enormously expensive endeavor. Right now, they're busily trying to prosecute the illegal sale of prescription drugs online, and having a hell of a time doing it. Sellers change their urls and start over.

Even North Korea hasn't been entirely able to stop people from writing political blogs.

This means the Justice Department will want a sub-beaurocracy beneath its control, with a building full of hackers, dedicated to monitoring our use of the internet. It will be as effective as the Department of Homeland Security: disruptive, walking all over our civil liberties, but ultimately worthless.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

What I've learned to admire most about Colly is that, whatever the issue, she takes the time to consider all sides, acknowledges the validity of divergent opinons, and then expresses her own view in clear, measured terms:



You said it, sister.

That's my printable opinion, my measured opinion would get me into real trouble

-Colly

 

[KarenAM]

Sex has the most amazing ability to unite fanatics who would otherwise hate each other, like Andrea Dworkin and John Ashcroft. What's really twisted about this whole thing is the evidence that a lack of exposure to sexual information is more likely to create a sexual offender than an overexposure will. Here's an interesting article on the whole subject:

IDENTIFYING WHAT IS HARMFUL OR INAPPROPRIATE FOR MINORS

 

[Colleen Thomas]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._st_pe/ashcroft_hospitalized&cid=542&ncid=716


Any comment by me at this point would likely land me at Gitmo.

-Colly

 

[lucky-E-leven]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._st_pe/ashcroft_hospitalized&cid=542&ncid=716


Any comment by me at this point would likely land me at Gitmo.

-Colly

Bite your tongue if you must, but I'd be interested to read it and even volunteer to lead the Bust Colly Out Of Gitmo brigade.

~lucky

 

[Colleen Thomas]

In this case discression is the better part of valor

-Colly

 

[SlickTony]

One can only wish that the GWU Hospital people will do the same kind of job of managing his pain that he seems to want to wish on other people...

 

[shereads]

Just a reminder:
Whatever the political issues and Ashcroft bashing aside, COPA was passed during the Clinton years and with support from many Democrats.

With a Senate and House Republican majority and just enough Democrats.

There's no such thing as Ashcroft bashing, just as there's no term for vampire bashing or serial rapist bashing. He's a dangerous fringe-group fundamentalist with a grudge against the people who wisely elected a dead man to office rather than have him as their Senator.

 

[shereads]

Sex has the most amazing ability to unite fanatics who would otherwise hate each other, like Andrea Dworkin and John Ashcroft. What's really twisted about this whole thing is the evidence that a lack of exposure to sexual information is more likely to create a sexual offender than an overexposure will. Here's an interesting article on the whole subject:

IDENTIFYING WHAT IS HARMFUL OR INAPPROPRIATE FOR MINORS

When Japan loosened restrictions on pornography, there was a dramatic decrease in sex crimes.

But we're not dealing with reason here. We're dealing with a man who thinks "voluntary" prayer meetings for his employees are really voluntary.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

With a Senate and House Republican majority and just enough Democrats.

There's no such thing as Ashcroft bashing, just as there's no term for vampire bashing or serial rapist bashing. He's a dangerous fringe-group fundamentalist with a grudge against the people who wisely elected a dead man to office rather than have him as their Senator.

A popular saying among my grandfather and his group of friends, for the abslute lowest of the low was "He ain't worth shooting". The implication being the person, or dog or cow in question wasn't worth the effort to go get your gun or the price of a bullet.

In the case of Asscroft the saying is applicable, he isn't worth the time, effort or price of a bullet. There are far too many fundamentalist, nazi wannabe's for Bush to choose from to replace him. In this case you must get rid of Bush and hope whoever you put in has some respect for the constitution, especially the first ten amendments, which Asscroft clearly does not.

This is a man who would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle. Credit must be give however where credit is due. Another of my grand father's sayings was "He has risen to the level of his own incomptence". Asscroft's level of competence is grade school librarian. Enforcing the rules on hapless kids and clipping all the "offensice" pictures from national geographic. The man has rise to so far above the level of his competence that he deserves applause for the accomplishment and GWB deserves castigation for turning this idiot loose on the rest of us.

-Colly

 

[Somme]

Bite your tongue if you must, but I'd be interested to read it and even volunteer to lead the Bust Colly Out Of Gitmo brigade.

~lucky

hmmm...th' BCOOG.............I'm buttering sandwiches and peeling bananas, packing victuals and bottled water in preparation...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Another of my grand father's sayings was "He has risen to the level of his own incomptence".
-Colly

Hi, Colly. Was that your grandfather's quote also. That is the Peter Principle, which reads something like: "In a hierarchy, individuals will rise to the lefvel of their own incompetence." That's not an exact quote but it is close enough. It's true, too.