G
Guest
Guest
shiver lit republican scum hypocrates
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's top courtroom lawyer defended congressional efforts keep Internet porn away from youngsters, telling the Supreme Court that pornography causes "substantial and calculable damage to our children."
"The Child Online Protection Act is Congress's response to that urgent national problem," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices Wednesday.
The law makes it illegal for commercial Web sites to post pictures and text deemed "harmful to minors," unless efforts were made to prevent children under 17 from accessing the material. The statute relies in part on "community standards" to identify harmful material.
A federal appeals court in Philadelphia last year said the 1999 statute seemed to trample free-speech rights and upheld a preliminary injunction blocking it.
High Court Will Review Congress's Attempt to Keep Sexual Content From Kids Online (Nov. 26)
The challenge to the law has been led by civil liberties groups and a large number of Web publishers. The statute "makes it a crime to communicate protected speech to adults over the World Wide Web," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Ann Beeson told the court.
During the hour-long argument session, the justices focused on the statute's "community standards" test, which the appeals court said imposed an "impermissible burden" on protected speech. Since Web publishers can't block access based on where a visitor lives, their sites could be "judged by the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the message," the court ruled.
Mr. Olson argued that the so-called community-standards yardstick didn't refer to geographic locations, but rather what the average adult in the U.S. would deem harmful to youngsters. He said Congress believed that would lead to a fairly uniform standard across the country.
Some justices questioned how jurors would decide the standard. Anthony M. Kennedy wondered whether a California jury should consider what standards exist in New York or other parts of the country. "I think it's a difficult question," he said.
Justice Antonin Scalia said the "community standards" test has long been used to measure obscenity, which doesn't receive First Amendment protection. "Why should it be any different for pornography?" he asked.
The statute doesn't cover material with literary, artistic or scientific value to children. That exception "sands off some of the rough edges" that might accompany geographic considerations, said Justice David H. Souter.
Ms. Beeson told the high court that the statute would force Web publishers to guess what kind of material may be deemed harmful to minors. That would lead to self-censorship and transform the Internet into an information pipeline "that is fit only for children."
She also said there were less restrictive ways -- parental controls like filtering or blocking software -- to keep raunchy Web sites out of youngsters' view.
Plaintiffs in the original lawsuit included the Sexual Health Network, a site geared toward people with disabilities, and PlanetOut, an online community for homosexuals and lesbians. Other plaintiffs included Salon Media Group's general-interest Webzine Salon.com and Riotgrrl, a site targeted to young women.
The statute was Congress' answer to a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a 1996 Internet-decency law, which the high court considered too broad. Lawmakers crafted the second version more narrowly, hoping it would pass constitutional muster.
Mr. Olson told the justices that pornography flourishes on the Internet. "As long as [youngsters] can type and read, they will be able to find it, and they will find it by accident," he said.
Questioning from some justices, particularly Stephen Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy, suggested that the case could be sent back to the appeals court for further review. The high court is expected to issue a decision sometime before middle of next year. (Ashcroft vs. ACLU)
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration's top courtroom lawyer defended congressional efforts keep Internet porn away from youngsters, telling the Supreme Court that pornography causes "substantial and calculable damage to our children."
"The Child Online Protection Act is Congress's response to that urgent national problem," Solicitor General Theodore Olson told the justices Wednesday.
The law makes it illegal for commercial Web sites to post pictures and text deemed "harmful to minors," unless efforts were made to prevent children under 17 from accessing the material. The statute relies in part on "community standards" to identify harmful material.
A federal appeals court in Philadelphia last year said the 1999 statute seemed to trample free-speech rights and upheld a preliminary injunction blocking it.
High Court Will Review Congress's Attempt to Keep Sexual Content From Kids Online (Nov. 26)
The challenge to the law has been led by civil liberties groups and a large number of Web publishers. The statute "makes it a crime to communicate protected speech to adults over the World Wide Web," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Ann Beeson told the court.
During the hour-long argument session, the justices focused on the statute's "community standards" test, which the appeals court said imposed an "impermissible burden" on protected speech. Since Web publishers can't block access based on where a visitor lives, their sites could be "judged by the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the message," the court ruled.
Mr. Olson argued that the so-called community-standards yardstick didn't refer to geographic locations, but rather what the average adult in the U.S. would deem harmful to youngsters. He said Congress believed that would lead to a fairly uniform standard across the country.
Some justices questioned how jurors would decide the standard. Anthony M. Kennedy wondered whether a California jury should consider what standards exist in New York or other parts of the country. "I think it's a difficult question," he said.
Justice Antonin Scalia said the "community standards" test has long been used to measure obscenity, which doesn't receive First Amendment protection. "Why should it be any different for pornography?" he asked.
The statute doesn't cover material with literary, artistic or scientific value to children. That exception "sands off some of the rough edges" that might accompany geographic considerations, said Justice David H. Souter.
Ms. Beeson told the high court that the statute would force Web publishers to guess what kind of material may be deemed harmful to minors. That would lead to self-censorship and transform the Internet into an information pipeline "that is fit only for children."
She also said there were less restrictive ways -- parental controls like filtering or blocking software -- to keep raunchy Web sites out of youngsters' view.
Plaintiffs in the original lawsuit included the Sexual Health Network, a site geared toward people with disabilities, and PlanetOut, an online community for homosexuals and lesbians. Other plaintiffs included Salon Media Group's general-interest Webzine Salon.com and Riotgrrl, a site targeted to young women.
The statute was Congress' answer to a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a 1996 Internet-decency law, which the high court considered too broad. Lawmakers crafted the second version more narrowly, hoping it would pass constitutional muster.
Mr. Olson told the justices that pornography flourishes on the Internet. "As long as [youngsters] can type and read, they will be able to find it, and they will find it by accident," he said.
Questioning from some justices, particularly Stephen Breyer and Anthony M. Kennedy, suggested that the case could be sent back to the appeals court for further review. The high court is expected to issue a decision sometime before middle of next year. (Ashcroft vs. ACLU)
