Loveliest Literotica Lady Laurel ????? Is this the court case you were watching

Todd-'o'-Vision

Super xVirgin Man
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Posts
5,609
Judges Throw Out Online Porn Law
Ruling: Libraries Can't Be Forced to Install Filters

By DAVID B. CARUSO
.c The Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (May 31) - Public libraries cannot be forced to use Internet filters designed to block pornography, three federal judges said Friday in overturning a new federal law.

In a 195-page decision, the judges said the Children's Internet Protection Act went too far because the filters can also block access to sites that contain protected speech.

''Any public library that adheres to CIPA's conditions will necessarily restrict patrons' access to a substantial amount of protected speech in violation of the First Amendment,'' the judges wrote.

The law, signed by President Clinton in 2000, would have required public libraries to install the filters by July 1 or risk losing federal funding. It had been widely criticized by First Amendment groups.

''There is no correction to the law that can be made here to save it,'' said Stefan Presser, the American Civil Liberties Union's legal director in Pennsylvania. ''The technology cannot block simply obscene speech, or speech that is harmful to minors, without blocking an enormous amount of speech that is constitutionally protected.''

The judges, who heard nearly two weeks of testimony in April, wrote that they were concerned that library patrons who wanted to view sites blocked by filtering software might be embarrassed or lose their right to remain anonymous because they would have to ask permission to have the sites unblocked.

Any appeal of the decision by 3rd U.S. Circuit Judge Edward R. Becker and U.S. District judges John P. Fullam and Harvey Bartle III would go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A message left for a Justice Department spokesman was not immediately returned Friday.

The decision was applauded by the American Library Association and the ACLU, which contended the law was unenforceable, unconstitutional, vague and overbroad. They argued it denied poor people without home computers the same access to information as their wealthier neighbors because the software could mistakenly block Web sites on issues such as breast cancer and homosexuality.

Schools and school libraries are still subject to the law, the American Library Association said.

Justice Department lawyers argued that Internet smut is so pervasive that protections are necessary to keep it away from youngsters, and that the law simply calls for libraries to use the same care in selecting online content that they use for books and magazines.

They also pointed out that libraries could turn down the federal funding if they want to provide unfiltered Web access.

David Burt, a spokesman for N2H2, a Seattle-based maker of filtering software, said that while the programs do improperly block some sites, the error-rate is low enough that libraries should be able to use them.

The Children's Internet Protection Act was the third anti-Internet-porn law brought before federal judges for constitutional challenges.

The 1996 Communications Decency Act made it a crime to put adult-oriented material online where children can find it. It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act required Web sites to collect a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing Internet users to view material deemed ''harmful to minors.'' The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals barred enforcement of that law, saying the standards were so broad and vague that the law was probably unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court partially upheld the law in May, but did not rule on its constitutionality as a whole. It remains on hold for further action in lower courts.

AP-NY-05-31-02 1430EDT

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
 
Being the paranoid person that I am, I try to keep my eye on all high-profile Internet Free Speech cases. However, this one wasn't the main one we've been following. The case that could eventually make Literotica illegal has been kicked back to a Federal court by the Supreme Court. Eventually, the Federal Court will probably send it right back to the Supreme Court one way or another. It's still up in the air, but at least they're giving us lots of time to worry by playing hot potato with the case. :)

I did notice that Ashcroft's Justice Department once again complained about a court upholding the First Amendment. This guy who so loves the Second Amendment seems to have no regard whatsoever for the First or Fourth Amendments. I can't believe he's in such a powerful position in our government. It's shameful.
 
Laurel said:
I did notice that Ashcroft's Justice Department once again complained about a court upholding the First Amendment. This guy who so loves the Second Amendment seems to have no regard whatsoever for the First or Fourth Amendments. I can't believe he's in such a powerful position in our government. It's shameful.

I feel the same way. The scary thing Is I ben talking to a couple of church groups in the states about him and talk about the left hand not knowing what the left hand thing going on. They on one hand see this aniiti 1st and 4th and are upset but still on the other hand they are "oh hes a good christian man"

BLEECH, the man is the beast and George W is the anti christist setting himself up as the pope of the us.

have I told you how sexy your sandwich nibbles looked?

ever find that CD ;)
 
Todd, when are you going to move to the US? Learn the Pledge of Allegiance or whatever it takes and become a citizen so you can help us vote against Ashcroft when he runs against Bush for the Republican nomination in 2004. I'll be waiting at the border crossing wearing a red, white, & blue top hat. :)
 
Laurel said:
Todd, when are you going to move to the US? Learn the Pledge of Allegiance or whatever it takes and become a citizen so you can help us vote against Ashcroft when he runs against Bush for the Republican nomination in 2004. I'll be waiting at the border crossing wearing a red, white, & blue top hat. :)

Not sure when, hopefully sooner than later.

I have phase three done of who knows how many phases of a 5 year work and visiting pass completed. I swear by now they know more about me than i do.

they sure are being thourough since the bush/ashcroft rieschtag fire
 
I think todd needs to learn how to spell before we can let him in the states.


We already have enough people who can't spell here we don't need another one. ;)
 
Back
Top