[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Child Online Protection Act is unconstitutional
- To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Child Online Protection Act is unconstitutional
- From: "Gunnar Anzinger" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 01:38:01 +0100
- Comment: This message comes from the debate mailing list.
- Priority: Normal
- Reply-To: "Gunnar Anzinger" <email@example.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
=============================== BEGIN ================================
Anti-Smut Law Struck Down
4:05 p.m. 1.Feb.99.PST
A new law that restricts Web smut violates the First Amendment, a
federal judge ruled Monday in a widely watched lawsuit.
Calling a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union a "rare
case," US District Judge Lowell A. Reed Jr. said he would like to see
future attempts by Congress to regulate the Net succeed -- but the law
went too far.
"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment
protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away
in the name of their protection," Reed wrote in a preliminary
Reed barred the government from prosecuting anyone under the Child
Online Protection Act, which restricts "harmful to minors" material on
commercial Web sites, unless the government appeals.
In January, Reed heard arguments by the ACLU and the US Department of
Justice in a lawsuit challenging the law, which Congress approved last
year as part of a mammoth spending measure.
================================ END =================================