Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (48877)	6/2/2002 12:33:20 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 82486

I know you don't go to the movies a lot, but LOL. I just noticed that Howard's End is on Bravo today. Maybe I'll watch it. It's that or Jackie Chan... In the meantime, I suppose you saw this news. A step in the right direction, IMO. I remember that the thread had a lively discussion on this topic a while bac--when we used to have lively topical discussions. washingtonpost.com Judges Strike Down Internet Porn Filters By Robert O'Harrow Jr. Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 31, 2002; 1:43 PM Government efforts to restrict access to online pornography received another setback today when a panel of federal judges struck down a law requiring public libraries to install Internet filters to block access to objectionable sites. In a unanimous decision, the three judges of a special panel said the Children's Internet Protection Act is "invalid under the First Amendment" because it requires libraries to use technology that blocks access to legitimate sites on the World Wide Web, while still giving access to some porn sites. The legislation known as CIPA, signed into law by President Clinton two years ago, required that public libraries use the electronic blocks, starting July 1, or lose millions of dollars in federal funding for computers and Internet access. In a 195-page decision, the judges said "that it is currently impossible, given the Internet's size, rate of growth, rate of change, and architecture, and given the state of the art of automated classification systems, to develop a filter that neither underblocks nor overblocks a substantial amount of speech." It was the third time in recent years that similar laws have been shot down for being overbroad or in violation of free speech protections. Today's decision, which applies only to public libraries, was praised by the American Librarian Association and American Civil Liberties Union, the leaders of a host of librarians, patrons and online publishers who challenged the validity of the law last year. "The court bans the government from turning librarians into thought police," said Ann Beeson, the litigation director for the ACLU's technology and liberty program. "The [filters] are inherently flawed and would prevent library patrons all over the country from accessing valuable sites on the Web." A Justice Department official declined to comment, saying officials there were reviewing the decision. Any appeal would go to the Supreme Court, which has taken a skeptical view of Congress's methods of curbing the spread of online pornography. In arguing the case, no one disputed the massive proliferation of smut on the Internet in recent years. The judges estimated there "are more than 100,000 pornographic Web sites that can be accessed for free and without providing any registration information, and tens of thousands of Web sites contain child pornography." They said the Internet has spurred "the widespread dissemination of hardcore pornography within the easy reach not only of adults who have every right to access it (so long as it is not legally obscene or child pornography), but also of children and adolescents to whom it may be quite harmful." But after two weeks of testimony in April, the judges agreed with the group of plaintiffs who argued the filters are a clumsy, inaccurate technology that violate free-speech rights by cutting off access to legitimate sites, such as those offering information about sexuality, sexually transmitted disease and breast cancer. While some libraries permitted patrons to request the filters be turned off, the judges said such policies put the patrons in an awkward position of seeking permission to access sensitive material. The judges called the filters "blunt instruments." Officials at the American Library Association, the lead plaintiff, said the decision affirms the notion that parents must protect their children by teaching them the right ways to use the Internet. Libraries will still be allowed to use filters for young children if parents choose, as many already do, but that will remain a local decision. Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the association's District office, estimated that up to $400 million in annual funding – through the federal E-rate program and Library Services Technology Act grants – was at stake. "The only way to protect children is to make sure they are educated so they can have a safe responsible experience," said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the association's District office. "This technology is not protecting their children." © 2002 The Washington Post Company