Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Supreme Court on June 29, for the second time in 2 years, rebuffed another effort by Congress to restrict minors' access to adult material on the Internet.
In a 5-4 decision issued just before adjourning for the summer, the Court sent the case Ashcroft v. ACLU (II), No. 03-218, back to the federal District Court in Philadelphia for further scrutiny of the 'plausible, less restrictive alternatives' to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) law, which makes it a crime for commercial Web sites to place adult material on the Internet where it can be viewed by minors.
In the meantime, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, the injunction that has halted enforcement of COPA since it was signed into law in 1998 should remain in effect.
The Court, while putting off resolution of the dispute yet again, used language in the decision that was heartening to First Amendment advocates.
Kennedy wrote that '[c]ontent-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties, have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people. To guard against that threat the Constitution demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.'
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Ann Beeson, who argued against the law before the Court, said, 'By upholding the order stopping Attorney General [John] 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.'
Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo voiced disappointment in the ruling. 'Congress has repeatedly attempted to address this serious need and the Court yet again opposed these common-sense measures to protect America's children. The Department will continue to work to defend children from the dangerous predators who lurk in the dark shadows of the World Wide Web,' he said in a statement.
The ruling is the latest chapter in the long-running saga of congressional attempts to protect minors from objectionable Internet content.
After the Supreme Court in the 1997 case Reno v. ACLU found the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional, Congress tried again to find a way to restrict minors' access to sexually explicit material on the Internet.
The result was COPA, which makes it a crime, knowingly and for commercial purposes, to make any material that is 'harmful to minors' accessible to minors.
'Harmful to minors' was defined as anything that is either obscene or by community standards appeals to prurient interests, depicts sex acts or genitals, or lacks artistic merit, among other definitions.
Before it took effect, the law was found unconstitutional at both the district court and appeals court levels and was enjoined from being enforced. In 2002, the Supreme Court examined the law and returned it to the appeals court for further findings on whether the injunction was justified. In its ruling, Ashcroft v. ACLU (I), the Supreme Court said the use of the 'community standards' rule in the law was not overbroad under the First Amendment. In its second look at the law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit again found the law was not narrowly tailored and was overbroad and therefore unconstitutional.
Kennedy wrote that the District Court was acting properly in enjoining enforcement of the law because of its likely First Amendment problems.
The ruling zeroed in on only one of these problems ' whether less-restrictive means existed to achieve the law's objectives. 'The purpose of the test is to ensure that speech is restricted no further than necessary to achieve the goal, for it is important to assure that legitimate speech is not chilled or punished,' Kennedy wrote.
Filtering alternatives that are available to parents, Kennedy suggested, are less restrictive than COPA because they 'impose selective restrictions at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source.' He also cited research indicating filters may be more effective in restricting minors' access to adult material generated overseas, beyond the reach of the law. But Kennedy also noted such software is 'not a perfect solution,' since it sometimes blocks material appropriate for children, while letting through adult material that should be blocked.
The government, Kennedy said, has the burden to prove that the alternative is less effective than the law. That can only be tested at the district court level, which can examine the 'changed legal landscape' as well as technological innovations since the court last looked at the issue.
Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissented. He claimed the law's scope is 'modest' and constitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia also dissented, claiming that the law should not be subjected to higher level 'strict scrutiny' but can be justified under lesser standards.
Tony Mauro writes on Supreme Court issues for American Lawyer Media, IL&S's parent company.
The Supreme Court on June 29, for the second time in 2 years, rebuffed another effort by Congress to restrict minors' access to adult material on the Internet.
In a 5-4 decision issued just before adjourning for the summer, the Court sent the case Ashcroft v. ACLU (II), No. 03-218, back to the federal District Court in Philadelphia for further scrutiny of the 'plausible, less restrictive alternatives' to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) law, which makes it a crime for commercial Web sites to place adult material on the Internet where it can be viewed by minors.
In the meantime, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, the injunction that has halted enforcement of COPA since it was signed into law in 1998 should remain in effect.
The Court, while putting off resolution of the dispute yet again, used language in the decision that was heartening to First Amendment advocates.
Kennedy wrote that '[c]ontent-based prohibitions, enforced by severe criminal penalties, have the constant potential to be a repressive force in the lives and thoughts of a free people. To guard against that threat the Constitution demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.'
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Ann Beeson, who argued against the law before the Court, said, 'By upholding the order stopping Attorney General [John] 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.'
Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo voiced disappointment in the ruling. 'Congress has repeatedly attempted to address this serious need and the Court yet again opposed these common-sense measures to protect America's children. The Department will continue to work to defend children from the dangerous predators who lurk in the dark shadows of the World Wide Web,' he said in a statement.
The ruling is the latest chapter in the long-running saga of congressional attempts to protect minors from objectionable Internet content.
After the Supreme Court in the 1997 case Reno v. ACLU found the Communications Decency Act unconstitutional, Congress tried again to find a way to restrict minors' access to sexually explicit material on the Internet.
The result was COPA, which makes it a crime, knowingly and for commercial purposes, to make any material that is 'harmful to minors' accessible to minors.
'Harmful to minors' was defined as anything that is either obscene or by community standards appeals to prurient interests, depicts sex acts or genitals, or lacks artistic merit, among other definitions.
Before it took effect, the law was found unconstitutional at both the district court and appeals court levels and was enjoined from being enforced. In 2002, the Supreme Court examined the law and returned it to the appeals court for further findings on whether the injunction was justified. In its ruling, Ashcroft v. ACLU (I), the Supreme Court said the use of the 'community standards' rule in the law was not overbroad under the First Amendment. In its second look at the law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit again found the law was not narrowly tailored and was overbroad and therefore unconstitutional.
Kennedy wrote that the District Court was acting properly in enjoining enforcement of the law because of its likely First Amendment problems.
The ruling zeroed in on only one of these problems ' whether less-restrictive means existed to achieve the law's objectives. 'The purpose of the test is to ensure that speech is restricted no further than necessary to achieve the goal, for it is important to assure that legitimate speech is not chilled or punished,' Kennedy wrote.
Filtering alternatives that are available to parents, Kennedy suggested, are less restrictive than COPA because they 'impose selective restrictions at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source.' He also cited research indicating filters may be more effective in restricting minors' access to adult material generated overseas, beyond the reach of the law. But Kennedy also noted such software is 'not a perfect solution,' since it sometimes blocks material appropriate for children, while letting through adult material that should be blocked.
The government, Kennedy said, has the burden to prove that the alternative is less effective than the law. That can only be tested at the district court level, which can examine the 'changed legal landscape' as well as technological innovations since the court last looked at the issue.
Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissented. He claimed the law's scope is 'modest' and constitutional. Justice
Tony Mauro writes on Supreme Court issues for American Lawyer Media, IL&S's parent company.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?