toggle

AAPL Stock: 109.64 ( -0.73 )

Printed from http://www.macnn.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 MacNN Staff

POST TOOLS:

TAGS :

toggle

Comments

  1. Guest

    Joined: Dec 1969

    -1

    Woohoo!

    Fap fap fap...

    Keep on free-fappin'!

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969

    +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

    Joined: Dec 1969

    +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

    Joined: Dec 1969

    +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

    Joined: Dec 1969

    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

    Joined: Dec 1969

    +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

    Joined: Dec 1969

    +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

Follow us on Facebook

toggle

Most Popular

Advertisement

Recent Reviews

Blue Yeti Studio

Despite being very familiar with Blue Microphones' lower-end products -- we've long recommended the company's Snowball line of mics ...

ZTE Spro 2 Smart Projector

Home theaters are becoming more and more accessible these days, but maybe you've been a bit wary about buying a home projector. And h ...

MSI Geforce GTX 970 100ME

When Nvidia announced a new line of video cards in September 2014, many people thought things would continue to be business as usual i ...

toggle

Most Commented