[iwar] [fc:CIPA.Internet.Porn.Law.Tossed.Out]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-06-03 13:24:15


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4752-1023135687-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 03 Jun 2002 13:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 2724 invoked by uid 510); 3 Jun 2002 20:28:33 -0000
Received: from n16.grp.scd.yahoo.com (66.218.66.71) by all.net with SMTP; 3 Jun 2002 20:28:33 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4752-1023135687-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [66.218.67.195] by n16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Jun 2002 20:21:28 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 3 Jun 2002 20:21:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 78940 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2002 20:21:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Jun 2002 20:21:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.72.152) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2002 20:21:27 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g53KOF731807 for iwar@onelist.com; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 13:24:15 -0700
Message-Id: <200206032024.g53KOF731807@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 13:24:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:CIPA.Internet.Porn.Law.Tossed.Out]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=PORN_10,DIFFERENT_REPLY_TO version=2.20
X-Spam-Level: 

CIPA Internet Porn Law Tossed Out
By Ryan Naraine

A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has tossed out the law aimed at
restricting Internet access in public libraries, ruling that the Children's
Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was in violation of the First Amendment.

The court issued its ruling Friday arguing that the use of filtering
software in schools and public libraries blocked access to Web sites that
contain substantial amounts of protected speech. The ruling comes as a big
win for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Library
Association, while filed twin-lawsuits last March to have the law tossed out
on First Amendment and due-process grounds.

The ACLU roundly applauded the decision. "The court today barred the
government from turning librarians into thought police armed with clumsy
blocking programs," said Ann Beeson, litigation director of the ACLU's
Technology and Liberty Program, which led the challenge.

"The court found that these programs are inherently flawed and will
inevitably prevent library patrons all over the country from accessing
valuable speech online," she added.

The ACLU's lawyers had argued in weeks of testimony that the law was
unconstitutional, unenforceable and vague and would deny people without home
computers full access to information online.

In its 195-page decision, the court sided with the civil liberties groups,
nothing they were worried that library patrons might be too embarrassed or
lose their right to be anonymous because the CIPA law required that they
seek permission to have the filtering software removed.

The law, which was enacted in December 2000 in part to protect minors from
access to Internet pornography, requires schools and libraries to use the
filtering software to shield minors from adult material but, because it
called for adults to get permission to access certain information, it raised
the ire of the civil liberties and library groups. The law also blocked
federal funding to libraries that did not install the software.

In its ruling, the judges agrees the use of filtering technology blocked
portions of protected speech "whose suppression serves no legitimate
government interest."

"Any public library that adheres to CIPA's conditions will necessarily
restrict patrons access to a substantial amount of protected speech in
violation of the First Amendment," according to the ruling.

Lawyers for the Justice Department are expected to appeal the ruling, which
would go directly to the U.S Supreme Court.

It is the third time constitutional challenges have been made against laws
aimed at curbing Internet pornography. The Supreme Court recently reversed a
U.S. appeals court ruling which found the 1998 Child Online Protection Act
(COPA) too broad in scope. In an 8-1 vote, the justices ruled that the
appeals court could not bar enforcement of the law on the basis that it
relies on community standards to identify harmful material.

The COPA law, which is different from the CIPA law affected by Friday's
ruling, was intended to make it a crime to place sexually explicit material
on the Internet where minors can view it. The law required commercial Web
site operators to use credit cards or other adult access systems to prevent
minors from viewing the material. COPA imposes criminal and civil penalties
of up to $50,000 per day for violations.

Congress drafted COPA in an effort to create a more narrowly defined law
than the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, which the Supreme Court
struck down in 1997 as unconstitutional, saying the CDA "place(d) an
unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech."

Immediately after the passage of COPA, the ACLU teamed up with privacy
rights groups -- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) -- and filed suit alleging that COPA violated the
First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.

Among other complaints, the watchdog groups said COPA:

# Imposes serious burdens on constitutionally-protected speech, including
materials like movies and television programs when disseminated through
commercial Web sites Fails to serve the government's interest in protecting
children because it won't effectively prevent children from seeing
inappropriate material originating from outside the U.S. available through
Internet resources beyond the World Wide Web, like chat rooms and e-mail.

# Does not represent the least restrictive means of regulating speech
because the Supreme Court has found that blocking and filtering software may
give parents more effective ability to screen undesirable content without
burdening speech.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tied to your PC? Cut Loose and
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mobile
http://us.click.yahoo.com/QBCcSD/o1CEAA/sXBHAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2003-08-24 02:46:32 PDT