KillerMuffin
Seraphically Disinclined
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2000
- Posts
- 25,603
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=952266
What this means to us, I don't know.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a federal law that makes it a crime to put on the Internet sexually explicit material that can be viewed by minors was not unconstitutional just because it relied on community standards.
By an 8-1 vote, the justices said a U.S. appeals court was wrong in barring enforcement of the law on constitutional free-speech grounds because it relied on community standards to identify online pictures and writings harmful to minors.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that reliance on community standards to identify material harmful to minors does not by itself render the law too broad under the First Amendment.
The decision involved a closely watched case that pitted free-speech rights against efforts by Congress to regulate in cyberspace by keeping minors away from online pornography.
Still, Thomas said the government remained barred from enforcing the law as a lower court now should consider whether it was unconstitutionally vague, too broad for other reasons or fails to survive strict scrutiny.
The Child Online Protection Act, adopted by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1998, requires commercial Web site operators to use credit cards or adult access systems before allowing Internet users to view material deemed harmful to minors.
The law calls for maximum criminal penalties of six months in jail and $50,000 in fines for first-time offenders, and additional fines for repeat violators.
The law has never been enforced. It immediately was challenged on First Amendment grounds by the American Civil Liberties Union and 17 groups and business, including online magazine publishers and booksellers.
Congress came up with the law in a new effort to shield minors from Internet pornography after the Supreme Court in 1997 struck down the Communications Decency Act that had been adopted the previous year.
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the 1998 law, saying Web site operators had no effective way of screening out minors.
The appeals court upheld the injunction. It specifically objected to how the law defined harmful as based on the average person in applying "contemporary community standards" and said it would effectively force all speakers on the Web to abide by the "most puritan" standards.
Thomas said use of community standards passes constitutional muster, saying the law defines harmful material in a way similar to the definition of obscenity. He said the law applies to "significantly less material" that the 1996 law.
Thomas said the scope of the ruling was "quite limited."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said community standards would not work in cyberspace. He said "the community that wishes to live without certain material not only rids itself, but the entire Internet of the offending speech."
He said speech is effectively prohibited whenever the least tolerant communities find it harmful to minors.
Stevens expressed concern the law could cover advertisements, online magazines, bulletin boards, chat rooms, stock photo galleries, Web diaries and a variety of illustrations encompassing a vast number of messages.
*emphasis added
What this means to us, I don't know.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a federal law that makes it a crime to put on the Internet sexually explicit material that can be viewed by minors was not unconstitutional just because it relied on community standards.
By an 8-1 vote, the justices said a U.S. appeals court was wrong in barring enforcement of the law on constitutional free-speech grounds because it relied on community standards to identify online pictures and writings harmful to minors.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that reliance on community standards to identify material harmful to minors does not by itself render the law too broad under the First Amendment.
The decision involved a closely watched case that pitted free-speech rights against efforts by Congress to regulate in cyberspace by keeping minors away from online pornography.
Still, Thomas said the government remained barred from enforcing the law as a lower court now should consider whether it was unconstitutionally vague, too broad for other reasons or fails to survive strict scrutiny.
The Child Online Protection Act, adopted by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1998, requires commercial Web site operators to use credit cards or adult access systems before allowing Internet users to view material deemed harmful to minors.
The law calls for maximum criminal penalties of six months in jail and $50,000 in fines for first-time offenders, and additional fines for repeat violators.
The law has never been enforced. It immediately was challenged on First Amendment grounds by the American Civil Liberties Union and 17 groups and business, including online magazine publishers and booksellers.
Congress came up with the law in a new effort to shield minors from Internet pornography after the Supreme Court in 1997 struck down the Communications Decency Act that had been adopted the previous year.
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the 1998 law, saying Web site operators had no effective way of screening out minors.
The appeals court upheld the injunction. It specifically objected to how the law defined harmful as based on the average person in applying "contemporary community standards" and said it would effectively force all speakers on the Web to abide by the "most puritan" standards.
Thomas said use of community standards passes constitutional muster, saying the law defines harmful material in a way similar to the definition of obscenity. He said the law applies to "significantly less material" that the 1996 law.
Thomas said the scope of the ruling was "quite limited."
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said community standards would not work in cyberspace. He said "the community that wishes to live without certain material not only rids itself, but the entire Internet of the offending speech."
He said speech is effectively prohibited whenever the least tolerant communities find it harmful to minors.
Stevens expressed concern the law could cover advertisements, online magazines, bulletin boards, chat rooms, stock photo galleries, Web diaries and a variety of illustrations encompassing a vast number of messages.
*emphasis added
