Posted on 06/29/2004 3:38:59 PM PDT by dixie sass
Supreme Court Strikes Down Anti-Porn Law
By a 5-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Child Online Protection Act, which was signed into law in 1998 as an attempt to shield children from online pornography. At the link below you can read the amicus brief we filed in this case, asking the Court to uphold the law. This decision is yet another victory at the High Court for pornographers, at the expense of America's children. Just one year ago the Supreme Court upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act because they realized the dangers in allowing children to be exposed to pornography in our nation's libraries. That danger is no less just because a child is sitting at home. Companies that make their profits peddling pornography should not have the luxury of exposing their filth to every child who may stumble onto their website.
With spam emails and pop-up ads littering the internet, it is easy to see how a child could unwittingly end up on a pornographic web site. It is not too much to ask that web users who want to access commercial pornographic content prove they are adults. And it is especially troubling that Justice Clarence Thomas was on the wrong side of this decision. However, as this battle continues on, we will be there to make sure that pornography companies are not elevated to a status higher than America's children. This law does not impede the decisions of adults who seek to view pornographic material. It merely recognizes what's common sense: we should concentrate on making it difficult for children to access porn rather than making it easier. Media Note: FRC Senior Legal Advisor Pat Trueman will appear tonight on CBS's "Evening News w/ Dan Rather," FOX's "The O'Reilly Factor," as well as on your local NBC and COX-owned stations. To stay up-to-date with our media appearances, visit us on the web at www.frc.org.
Additional Resources Ashcroft v. ACLU -- Amicus Brief http://www.frc.org/index.cfm?i=CB03L02&f=WU04F24&t=e
how do you do that online?
Smutty words are speech, but pictures? Not in my opinion. That's like saying you can't require people to wear clothes in public because of free speech. I mean...just because the nudity is on paper and words can sometimes be on paper (or computer monitors), doesn't make nudity on paper (or screens) speech. That's an invalid argument. Why do we have such a stupid Supreme Court?
credit card
we only let our grandchildren use the computer while we are sitting next to them.
pass it on.
I wish that I knew.
That would work.
Credit cards would just prove that a kid got hold of someones credit card.
Glad I don't have any young ones anymore.
I have young grand kids but they aren't allowed to use my comp.
They can go home and let their parents watch them on the comp.
Maybe its just me but I always considered "free speech" to mean the right to criticise the Goverment, for example.
Somehow I don't think pictures of people having sex is quite what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
I heard this during RUSH today at work there were a whole shop full of fathers and mothers that are very UNHAPPY campers.
It wasnt a pretty sight but it made me feel good they felt that way about it !
true enough...but 2 of ours live next door and have all their life...they think they are home when they are over here!!
But we bought them a subscription to "toontown" and some other fun and educational kids sites....some of the games are really quite fun (so i have heard, not that i would know personally) lol
Another Clinton Law stuck down by the Supreme Court.
This is one law that should have stayed in effect. I have no desire to read or view porn and neither do most people that I know.
Anyone here familiar with "The Hun?"
I don't understand what was the reasoning behind this decision... Isn't a public library, in which a user can view porn, put into the position of actually sponsoring porn, as are the taxpayers who support that library?
Thankfully, there are some rather sophisticated filtering programs out there.
The net isn't any safer than any other highway, and parents have to be responsible for where they allow their children to play...
The problem is not just MY child veiwing porn, it's the neighbor child. Like violence on tv, MY child becomes victim of someone else's problem.
It's time to fire the entire Supreme Court and ammend the Constitution to impose term limits on the "Justices'" tenures. Attorneys are self serving and corrupt by nature and should never be given such resposibility and absolute power.
I'm thinking that it shouldn't be an issue of "free speech."
No one is telling these pornographers that they can't sell, "express", ect...their filth. Just not to kids. That's why they call it "adult language," "adult behavior."
Just as a liquor store owner can't sell to minors, he can control who he sells to. The porno pirates don't care, they can't regulate just who looks at their trash online. As long as it gets seen.
Sick.
Thanks for the ping!
The question the Supreme Court is kicking down to lower courts is whether practical means exist by which pornographers can ensure that their works are not sent to children without having to withhold them from adults as well.
From a practical standpoint, I don't really know what can be accomplished legislatively, since offshore companies can still send in whatever they want.
Many of the news articles try to make this out to be about obscene material and child porn, but such material is already prohibited in any form by federal law.
The COPA act that the Supreme court struck down today was about restricting access to material that is protected by the first amendment. COPA was all about putting additional restrictions on protected speech.
The Internet is an adult medium, just like Playboy is an adult medium, just like the New England Journal of Medicine is for adults, or Mein Kampf, or Free Republic. There's some really good non-porn articles and other content in Playboy, but do you let your children read Playboy? (Personally, I'd be more concerned if you let your kids read NEJM).
Do you give your kids Playboy? Then why given them the Internet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.