Important note: Information in this article was accurate in 2003. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.
Los Angeles Times - October 15, 2003
David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it would decide whether the government could make it a crime for a commercial Web site to make available sexually explicit material to minors.
The court agreed for the first time to consider allowing the government to enforce a 1998 federal law known as the Child Online Protection Act.
Congress has been determined to try to shield children and teenagers from pornography on the Internet. But so far, free-speech advocates have succeeded in wielding the 1st Amendment as a shield against federal enforcement.
The new case, to be heard in February, will be the third time the high court has reviewed such measures. In each instance, the same problem has arisen. Protecting computer-using minors from explicit sex has the effect of limiting, to some degree, what is available to adults. And according to the lower courts, that limitation of the rights of adults violates the 1st Amendment.
Six years ago, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a law that made it a crime to post or transmit any "indecent" message on the Internet. The justices characterized the measure as so broad that it amounted to the equivalent of policing people talking on the telephone.
A year later, Congress tried again and drafted a narrower law. The new measure applied only to a "communication for commercial purposes" that was posted on the Web. And it applied only to material that was "harmful to minors." This in turn referred to a depiction or description of "an actual or simulated sexual act" or "a lewd exhibition of the genitals or a female breast."
Opponents of the law say that definition is vague and could encompass a huge amount of material. Sponsors of Internet sites that offer sex advice, including those for people who are HIV-positive, include explicit accounts, and these could be subject to prosecution if teenagers were shown to have gained access to the sites, opponents of the measure said.
These critics of the law say parents should protect their children by buying software that screens out sexually explicit material.
However, backers of the law stressed that sponsors of Web sites could exclude children - and protect themselves from prosecution - by requiring a credit card or an adult-access code.
Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union have led the challenges to the Child Online Protection Act, and they have won twice before a federal appeals court in Philadelphia.
In the first ruling, the appeals court said there was no national standard for what was "harmful to minors," and the most conservative community in America could set the standard if prosecutions were brought there.
The Supreme Court took up that question two years ago but sent the case back to Philadelphia to reconsider the matter. On the second try, the appeals court struck down the law because it "prohibits a wide range of protected expression" between adults.
In the latest appeal in the case, now known as Ashcroft vs. ACLU, the government lawyers argue that the Internet law is the equivalent of the "blinder racks" in convenience stores that shield sex magazines from perusal by minors.
If minors are to be protected from commercial pornography on the Web, there "is no alternative to the Child Online Protection Act," Bush administration lawyers told the court.
031015
LT031004
Copyright © 2003 - Los Angeles Times. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission. Reproduction of this article (other than one copy for personal reference) must be cleared through the Los Angeles Times, Permissions, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053. http://www.latimes.com.
AEGiS is a 501(c)3, not-for-profit, tax-exempt, educational corporation. AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted funding from Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS, Elton John AIDS Foundation, the National Library of Medicine, Pacific Life Foundation and donations from users like you.
Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2003. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.
AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.
Copyright ©1980, 2003. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .