How do you think this could affect this forum?
Anyone concerned?
05/13/2002 - Updated 11:05 PM ET
www.usatoday.com
Justices partially uphold child porn law
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON —
The Supreme Court on Monday gave life to the U.S. government's effort to make it a crime to put sexually explicit pictures on the Internet where they can be seen by children. But the justices made clear that constitutional hurdles could keep the law from being enforced. The justices voted 8-1 to throw out an appeals court ruling that said the 1998 Child Online Protection Act violates free-speech rights because it relies on "community standards" to identify what online materials are harmful to minors.
The U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia had said that standard, which has been used by courts for nearly three decades to determine whether hard-core materials can be restricted locally, could not work on the Internet. The appeals court said that because online content can be viewed from virtually anywhere in the USA, the 1998 law would force materials to be subject to the standards of the most conservative communities.
But Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the law's use of community standards to identify "material that is harmful to minors" does not necessarily make the statute unconstitutional. The justices returned the case to lower courts for hearings on whether the act, which targets information on Web sites but not in e-mails or chat rooms, violates adult free speech rights.
Deciding that is unlikely to be easy. The court's majority did not agree on a rationale for its ruling, and the justices offered competing views of how the First Amendment applies to the Internet. The justices produced five opinions in the case, a reflection of the difficulty in crafting ways to regulate online material.
They split over how the "community standards" test for obscenity could be adapted for online pictures and writings that might harm children. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer called for a national standard to determine when materials should be banned on the Internet.
Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted with the majority, but suggested that they ultimately might find the law unconstitutional. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying that the standards of a pre-Internet world cannot apply to this "unique forum for communication because information, once posted, is accessible everywhere on the network at once."
Anyone concerned?
05/13/2002 - Updated 11:05 PM ET
www.usatoday.com
Justices partially uphold child porn law
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON —
The Supreme Court on Monday gave life to the U.S. government's effort to make it a crime to put sexually explicit pictures on the Internet where they can be seen by children. But the justices made clear that constitutional hurdles could keep the law from being enforced. The justices voted 8-1 to throw out an appeals court ruling that said the 1998 Child Online Protection Act violates free-speech rights because it relies on "community standards" to identify what online materials are harmful to minors.
The U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia had said that standard, which has been used by courts for nearly three decades to determine whether hard-core materials can be restricted locally, could not work on the Internet. The appeals court said that because online content can be viewed from virtually anywhere in the USA, the 1998 law would force materials to be subject to the standards of the most conservative communities.
But Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said the law's use of community standards to identify "material that is harmful to minors" does not necessarily make the statute unconstitutional. The justices returned the case to lower courts for hearings on whether the act, which targets information on Web sites but not in e-mails or chat rooms, violates adult free speech rights.
Deciding that is unlikely to be easy. The court's majority did not agree on a rationale for its ruling, and the justices offered competing views of how the First Amendment applies to the Internet. The justices produced five opinions in the case, a reflection of the difficulty in crafting ways to regulate online material.
They split over how the "community standards" test for obscenity could be adapted for online pictures and writings that might harm children. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Stephen Breyer called for a national standard to determine when materials should be banned on the Internet.
Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted with the majority, but suggested that they ultimately might find the law unconstitutional. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying that the standards of a pre-Internet world cannot apply to this "unique forum for communication because information, once posted, is accessible everywhere on the network at once."
