p2pnet - rss feed: Child Online Protection Act ‘unconstitutional’
p2pnet news view | Freedom:- A 1998 law meant to protect children from sexual material and other negative online content has been struck down as unconstitutional.
A 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia decision, supporting an earlier lower court ruling, is, “the latest twist in a decade-long legal battle over the Child Online Protection Act,” passed the year after the Supreme Court ruled that another law intended to protect children from explicit material online - the Communications Decency Act - was unconstitutional in the landmark case Reno v American Civil Liberties Union, says the Associated Press, going on:
“The fight has already reached the Supreme Court and could be headed back there.”
The law, which yet hasn’t taken effect, would bar sites from making harmful content available to minors, says AP, continuing:
“The ACLU challenged the 1998 law on behalf of a coalition of writers, artists, health educators and the publisher Salon Media Group. ACLU attorney Chris Hansen argued that Congress has been trying to restrict speech on the Internet far more than it can restrict speech in books and magazines.”
The Child Online Protection Act would, “effectively force all Web sites to provide only family-friendly content because it is not feasible to lock children out of sites that are lawful for adults, said John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law.
Now the federal appeals court says the Child Online Protection Act is unconstitutionally overly broad and vague, also ruled it violates the First Amendment because, “filtering technologies and other parental control tools offer a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online,” says AP.
.
.Stumble It!
Associated Press -Court affirms Child Online Protection Act unconstitutional, July 22, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Anyone wanna take bets on what the next version of this law will be called after this one is declared unconstitutional? After all, two defeats of basically the same law aren’t nearly enough to discourage them from wasting more money by trying again…
July 24th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Hey, we’re all against any protection of children here, right? I mean, screw kids–who do they think they are needing protection? Let them suffer like the rest of us. And what’s all this about innocence? Pfft. . .let’s get them integrated into our corrupt society as soon as possible! Who’s with me?
July 24th, 2008 at 9:43 am
“Hey, we’re all against any protection of children here, right?”
Not true. But their is a constitution; it is one of the best in the world and it should be enforced.
True protecting or kids is very important but every thing is a question of balance and some are too happy to use this pretext that we have to protect our kid to infringe the freedom of speach.
Amaxingly enought it is those same neo-con pederasts in congress that are the most likly to harm our kid and our freedom of speach at the same time! We definitively don’t need them to protect our kid!
We are doing the job ourselves and a lot better than them indeed! Obviously we don’t need them eiyher to protect our country agaisnt terrorists! And by the way where is Ben Laden?
July 24th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Aaaah, the brainwashed masses just simply can not see Political Posturing for what it REALLY is………………………………… So who are YOU going to “vote” for in November??????
July 24th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
@ bah
not sure if you were sarcastic, in case you weren’t:
What the hell has children to do alone unsuperwised by a parent sitting in front of a PC monitor and “surfing on the internet”?
you don’t allow your kid to explore the “interesting” districts of your city alone. (And if you do and the police spots your kid lonely wandering around the red light district and talking to a hocker I bet child protection will have some serious talking with you)
you don’t need new laws to “protect” children online! you need serious education that children do not belong alone on the internet!
This stupid mother of this mentally sick girl for example that killed herself allegedly because of that phony boyfriend incidnet with that female adult neighbor is/was one of the candidates for child protection services!
Why the hell is it that the most incompetent parents and the most stupid politicians alwasy claim “child protection” to try to ban stuff that is perfectly fine for adults that are mature enough to wander around alone on the internet?
These guys are all censoring control freak nazi’s.
And nowadays those guys from the MAFIAA are using the disguise of “protecting the children online” too to tighten their grip on this medium of free expression among mature adults!
The internet is not “a children playground”.
Children KEEP OUT (or only visiting under constant tight supervision)
Leave this adult space alone!
This also goes for the New York AG that allegedly cooperates and gets his data from those cybercriminals Randy S. and Octavio (sp?) H. from Artist Direct Company MediaDefender according to the emails that were publicly viewable on that internetpage back then.
Shame on all of you control freaks and shame on your false flag agendas. In reality you give a shit about the children. It’s just your controlfreak desire that you want to satisfy!
July 24th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
haha above post said “hocker”