More specifically though, The American Civil Liberties Union, Case No. 96-511, challenging the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), Justice O'Conner writes, "I view the Communications Decency Act of 1996 as a little more than an attempt by Congress to create "adult zones" on the Internet. This user-based zoning is accomplished through the use of screening software (such as Cyber Patrol or SurfWatch) or browsers with screening capabilities, both of which search addresses and text for keywords that, are associated with "adult" sites and, if the user wishes, blocks access to such sites. Precedent indicates that the creation of such zones can be constitutionally sound. Despite the soundness of its purpose, however, portions of the CDA are unconstitutional because they stray from the blueprint our prior cases have developed for constructing a "zoning law" that passes constitutional muster." She continues, " The creation of "adult zones" is by no means a novel concept. States have long denied minors access to certain establishments frequented by adults. States have also denied minors access to speech deemed to be "harmful to minors." The Court has previously sustained such zoning laws, but only if they respect the 1st Amendment rights of adults and minors. That is to say, a zoning law is valid if it does not unduly restrict adult access to the material.
This case makes clear that a "zoning" law is valid only if adults are still able to obtain the regulated speech. If they cannot, the law does more than simply keep children away from speech they may have no right to obtain, it interferes with the rights of adults to obtain constitutionally protected speech and again, effectively "reduce[s] the adult population to reading only what is fit for children. The 1st Amendment does not tolerate such interference."
I say this will be appealed and defeated