Printed from http://www.electronista.com

Supreme Court rules online porn law unconstitutional

updated 03:55 pm EST, Wed January 21, 2009

Court Rebuffs Porn Law

The US Supreme Court today rejected an appeal by the Justice Department to uphold the Communications Decency Act. The law, first put into place in 1998, was intended to force adult-oriented sites to use logins or payment to prevent unintentionally exposing children to sexual material. The Supreme Court has ruled the law unconstitutional for violating free speech rights by dictating too broadly how site owners present their content.

Imposing the restriction would affect as many as 700 million US sites and could have forced many of these owners to either pay fines up to $50,000 per day or endure six-month prison sentences, according to government lawyers criticizing the appeal.

Advocates of screening adult websites have instead suggested alternatives such as automatic but not necessarily government-backed content filters at the Internet provider level.



By Electronista Staff
Post tools:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. Guest

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Nov 1999

    -1

    Woohoo!

    Fap fap fap...

    Keep on free-fappin'!

  1. testudo

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Aug 2001

    +1

    woohoo!

    Although they didn't reject it, per se, they refused to hear it. There technically is a difference (whatever it may be).

  1. WiseWeasel

    Junior Member

    Joined: Apr 1999

    +3

    Woot!

    Keep your stupid unenforceable church-lady-pandering laws off my innernets! Advocates of screening adult websites would do well to focus on voluntary user-installed and controlled filtering services, so parents can be empowered to protect their children without infringing on my god-given right to consume p***. Leave ISPs out of this; they're just dumb pipes, ideally completely uninvested in and impartial to the content they transmit.

  1. dimmer

    Mac Enthusiast

    Joined: Feb 2006

    +3

    Refusing

    My refusing to hear a "case" the Supreme Court effectively is stating that there is no constitutional merit to the submission. As close as you can get to being told to FOAD. We already have enough problems with ISP's providing illegal monitoring and reporting of Internet use, God forbid we give them some legal basis for doing so.

  1. testudo

    Forum Regular

    Joined: Aug 2001

    0

    ISPs

    Why is everyone talking about ISPs. This had NOTHING to do with ISPs, but with the p*** sites themselves (as well as some nice "Public libraries need to protect our children" c*** in there too.

  1. Tralthamidor

    Fresh-Faced Recruit

    Joined: Jun 2007

    +5

    700 million?

    700 million US sites? That's a lot of p*** sites for a country with only 300 million people in it.

    On second thought, that sounds right...

  1. dimmer

    Mac Enthusiast

    Joined: Feb 2006

    +4

    Because...

    "Advocates of screening adult websites have instead suggested alternatives such as automatic but not necessarily government-backed content filters at the Internet provider level"

    Testy, you may want to finish reading the post before you start dishing out bullshit. In fact, that might be a good idea to make into a "habit" for you. Just a thought.

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.

toggle

Network Headlines

toggle

Most Popular

Sponsor

Recent Reviews

ActvContent Sync Smartband

Smartbands of all sorts are hitting the market. Some build on the buzz around fitness trackers, while others offer simpler features fo ...

RocketStor 6324L Thunderbolt 2 eSATA bridge

Like it or not, the shift to Thunderbolt is underway. The connection is extremely flexible, allowing for video and data to co-habitate ...

Patriot Stellar Boost XT 64GB USB 3.0 drive

A vast selection of USB memory sticks means that consumers can often find exactly the size drive they need in a configuration that can ...

Sponsor

toggle

Most Commented

 
toggle

Popular News