Federal judge blocks online porn law
Categories: Health & safety, Gadgets & tech, That's entertainment
Claiming that parents can protect their children from accessing harmful materials online through software filters and other means, a U.S. District Judge has struck down the 1998 Child Online Protection Act. The Act made made it a crime for commercial web site operators to allow children under 17 to access materials that were deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards."
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr.
The law would have made it necessary for web sites hosted in the United States to require a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing visitors access to such harmful content. Penalties for allowing access to underage children included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison. Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, web site operators challenged the law, arguing that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have a negative effect on speech.
In defense of the law, government lawyers argued that software filters are burdensome and ineffective. "It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its source," a government attorney, Peter D. Keisler, argued in a post-trial brief.
Do you use software filters on your kid's computers? Who should be responsible for protecting kids online - parents or the government?
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr.
The law would have made it necessary for web sites hosted in the United States to require a credit card number or other proof of age before allowing visitors access to such harmful content. Penalties for allowing access to underage children included a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison. Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, web site operators challenged the law, arguing that the Child Online Protection Act was unconstitutionally vague and would have a negative effect on speech.
In defense of the law, government lawyers argued that software filters are burdensome and ineffective. "It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its source," a government attorney, Peter D. Keisler, argued in a post-trial brief.
Do you use software filters on your kid's computers? Who should be responsible for protecting kids online - parents or the government?
Recent Posts
- New Words for No, Book Recommendations, and Preggatinis - Links We Love (7/06/2009)
- 'Fit as a Firefighter' Camp Helps Kids Lose Weight (7/06/2009)
- Technology Lets Parents 'Hold' Unborn Baby (7/06/2009)
- Strawberry Shortcake (7/06/2009)
- The Dingo's Got My Baby Name! (7/06/2009)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
rebecca Biernesser 3-22-2007 @ 6:06PM
i'm sorry, last time I looked I was the parent of my child, not the government. They have enough to do with all the back-stabbing and crap they do. They have a hard enough time doing that, so do I really want them watching what my child does???? That's my job
Reply
Ann Adams 3-22-2007 @ 7:55PM
It's my job, not the government's. I do have a filter on the girls' computer and I keep an eye on what they're doing.
Reply
Cheli 3-22-2007 @ 10:50PM
I think that the government and the parents both need to take part in protecting the children. Porn is not something I want my child to see when he becomes an age where he can surf the web. While I think that the government is getting a little too involved in the raising of our children, I think there are some issues that parents just can't possibly deal with solely on their own. I think the Acts like the one above are put in place to help the parents and I think it's irresponsible of the judge to rule as he did which says to me "I care more about the easy access to porn for those who want it then I do about children's well being."
As for the comment that we are chipping away at the rights that the children will eventually inherit fully.. yes we are.. Children are children. They don't know better most of the time against the dangers of society. For example.. at 18 a child has the right to smoke, go into a club, etc.. does that mean we should lift the age requirements set in place for those acts and put that solely on the parents?
Reply
Christine 3-28-2007 @ 12:43PM
It is my responsibility. Period. My daughter will be 10 in a few weeks... do I want her looking at porn? Um, no. But if she is looking at porn then I am doing something wrong. Of course it is reasonable for the government to expect parents to monitor their children.
Reply