Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-29-2004, 07:58 AM   #1 (permalink)
Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe.
 
Location: UCSB
SCOTUS finds against anti-porn law; Thomas rolls a natural 20 and regains his soul.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5324463/

"Justices block Internet porn law
Lower court will next hear government's case
BREAKING NEWS
The Associated Press
Updated: 11:07 a.m. ET June 29, 2004

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.

The high court divided 5-to-4 over a law passed in 1998, signed by then-President Clinton and now backed by the Bush administration. The majority said a lower court was correct to block the law from taking effect because it likely violates the First Amendment.

The court did not end the long fight over the law, however. The majority sent the case back to a lower court for a trial that could give the government a chance to prove the law does not go too far.

Has technology advanced?
The majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there may have been important technological advances in the five years since a federal judge blocked the law.

Holding a new trial will allow discussion of what technology, if any, might allow adults to see and buy material that is legal for them while keeping that material out of the hands of children.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with Kennedy.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other critics of the antipornography law said that it would restrict far too much material that adults may legally see and buy, the court said.

The law, which never took effect, would have authorized fines up to $50,000 for the crime of placing material that is “harmful to minors” within the easy reach of children on the Internet.

The law also would have required adults to use access codes and or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online.

'Serious chill' on speech possible
For now, the law, known as the Child Online Protection Act, would sweep with too broad a brush, Kennedy wrote.

“There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech” if the law took effect, he wrote.

He said that so far, the government has failed to prove that other technologies would work better.

The ruling in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union was the last of nearly 80 cases decided in a busy court term. The year’s marquee cases involving presidential power to dealing with suspected terrorist were anounced Monday, and mostly represented a loss for the Bush administration.

Background to Internet efforts
Tuesday’s pornography ruling is more nuanced, but still a blow to the government. It marks the third time the high court has considered the case, and it may not be the last.

Congress had tried repeatedly to find a way to protect Web-surfing children from smut without runing afoul of the First Amendment.

The justices unanimously struck down the first version of a child-protection law passed in 1996, just as the Internet was becoming a commonplace means of communication, research and entertainment.

Congress responded by passing COPA, saying the new law met the Supreme Court’s free-speech standards.

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged COPA immediately, arguing that the replacement law was every bit as unconstitutional as the original. The law has been tied up in the courts ever since.

Dissenting opinion
In dissent, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer said the law is constitutional and should be upheld.

Restrictions about who would be covered by the law and how it would be enforced “answer many of the concerns raised by those who attack its constitutionality,” Breyer wrote.

The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of online bookstores, artists and others, including operators of Web sites that offer explicit how-to sex advice or health information. The ACLU argued that its clients could face jail time or fines for distributing information that, while racy or graphic, is perfectly legal for adult eyes and ears.

Material that is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment. Adults may see or purchase it, but children may not.

That is a tricky rule to enforce in the murky and anonymous reaches of the Internet. Most Web sites, chat rooms and other Internet venues are available to adults and minors alike, and commercial transactions do not take place face to face.

The Internet also presents a difficulty in translating old rules about what children could see and what they could not.

In writing the 1998 law, Congress said “contemporary community standards” should guide what is harmful to children. Civil liberties defenders said that the standard would lead to the most prudish place in America having veto power over the most liberal, because Internet material is available to them both.

The ACLU also said the community standards idea would force legitimate Web site operators to self-censor, for fear of running afoul of someone’s idea of what is inappropriate for children.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and ruled that the standards issue alone made the law unconstitutional. The Bush administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which delivered a partial victory for the government two years ago.

The court said at that time that, by itself, the community standards issue did not make the law unconstitutional. The justices then sent the case back for a fuller examination of the other free speech objections raised by the ACLU.

The Philadelphia-based federal appeals court then struck down the law a second time, on much broader First Amendment grounds, and the administration again appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case is Ashcroft v. ACLU, 03-218.

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

I'm going to file this as a victory for free-speech and my ability to view the titty board without proof of age. I'm also rather suprised that justice Thomas was not on the side of Scalia. I could have sworn that Thomas was a total sycophant, but it seems he has his own opinion from time to time.
__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."
nanofever is offline  
Old 06-29-2004, 09:45 AM   #2 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Re: SCOTUS finds against anti-porn law; Thomas rolls a natural 20 and regains his sou

Quote:
Originally posted by nanofever
I'm going to file this as a victory for free-speech and my ability to view the titty board without proof of age.
Well, if Halx ever finds a way to require proof of age, I expect he'll use it, actually.

Meanwhile, this is definitely a victory for free speech, agreed.
denim is offline  
Old 06-29-2004, 11:34 PM   #3 (permalink)
No Avatar, No Sig.
 
I climbed a mountain with a guy who was a clerk for Souter. He claimed that Thomas had porn tapes in his office at the SC, a whole shelf of them. Everyone knew it, but nobody said anything. So it's not a surprise that Thomas would break from his sycophant like following of Rehnquist.
This guy also claimed the Thomas is certainly the worst SC judge. Not only does he almost never ask questions during hearings, but he also never has anything to say at the closed door meetings and tends to parrot back Rehnquist's positions.
Wax_off is offline  
Old 06-30-2004, 05:24 AM   #4 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
A+ for the D&D ref. I <3 porn!
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 06-30-2004, 09:10 AM   #5 (permalink)
BFG Builder
 
Location: University of Maryland
Yeah. Kudos on the D20 reference.

I wonder how Ashcroft is feeling right now?
__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.
DelayedReaction is offline  
 

Tags
antiporn, finds, law, natural, regains, rolls, scotus, soul, thomas

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:56 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360