Ruling sends law down to lower court for trial
From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked enforcement of a law intended to protect children from pornography on the Internet, saying the law probably violates free-speech guarantees.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court said 1998 legislation "likely violates the First Amendment."

The court ordered parties from both sides to reconsider the issue in a lower-court trial. The ruling gives the Bush administration a chance to prove the law does not violate free-speech rights.

The case tested the free-speech rights of adults against the power of Congress to control Internet commerce.

The 1998 law, known as the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), never took effect. It 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, according to The Associated Press.

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

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "the government has not shown that the less-restrictive alternatives proposed ... should be disregarded. Those alternatives, indeed, may be more effective" than the law passed by Congress.

Kennedy said rapid changes in technology would make filtering software a more effective tool to block access than the more restrictive means laid out in COPA, such as age verification and use of a credit card.

He said a new trial would allow fresh discussion of the kinds of technology that could satisfy constitutional concerns.

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

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that, while the law places some burdens on adults wishing to view adult material, "it significantly helps to achieve a compelling congressional goal, protecting children from exposure to commercial pornography." He was joined by justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Scalia.

The case marked the third time the high court has considered the issue. A 1996 law was struck down by the justices, and the court balked at allowing a second law from going into effect. The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups sued, saying the law criminalizes free speech.

The ACLU applauded the ruling.

"There are many less restrictive ways to protect children without sacrificing communication intended for adults," said Ann Beeson, the ACLU attorney who argued before the Court. "By upholding the order stopping Attorney General Ashcroft from enforcing this questionable federal law, the Court has made it safe for artists, sex educators, and web publishers to communicate with adults about sexuality without risking jail time."

The case is Ashcroft v. ACLU, case no. 03-0218.

The case was the last of nearly 80 cases decided in a busy court term that ended Tuesday with no announcements that any of the nine justices would retire, according to the AP.

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

Yeah, well, they still dodge the issue that it is mind control, in the form of censorships, which is the harmful method here.

__________________
On the kinkometer, my kink measures as a sine wave.

The law also overlooks the fact that the internet is world wide, outside the jurisdiction of the US Congress

__________________
Plug me into somethin'

If the theory does not conform to the facts, then the facts must be discarded.

No good deed ever goes unpunished

Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level, & beat you with experience.

Anything that stops Ashcroft is OK with me.

A caveat. Imagine ... the year, 2006. Mr. Dubya has been re-elected and, as anticipated, two or three members of the Court have announced their resignation.

Now Bush has the opportunity to name 2 -3 new appointees to the Court.

Given the new conservative/Christian complexion of the majority on the bench, how would that future Court have ruled on this issue?