Cathy Ruse wrote:
> from the April 02, 2007 edition -
> http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0402/p09s01-coop.html
> A shameful surrender to pornographers:
> To protect kids, why can't we require porn sites to check IDs?
> By Cathy Ruse
> Arlington, Va.
> Another federal judge has struck down the Child Online Protection Act.
> Had it taken effect, the 1998 law would have done one simple thing:
> require Internet pornographers to verify the age of customers through
> the use of adult-access codes or credit cards.
> Last month, Judge Lowell Reed Jr ruled out even this basic measure of
> accountability as a violation of the free-speech rights of porn
> purveyors and their often addicted customers.
> Adding insult to injury, he said he was doing it for the kids:
> "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." So, by protecting the right of smut
> peddlers to exploit my daughter, Mr. Reed is actually protecting her
> right to exploit other children when she's an adult. The logic, and
> the arrogance, is breathtaking.
> The Internet has revolutionized the way Americans conduct their daily
> lives. All kinds of pornography -- from puerile convenience-store fare
> to pornographic images of violence and depravity surpassing the worst
> excesses of normal human imagination -- are now just a click away.
> Indeed, children are accessing pornography at a previously unmatched
> rate and with unparalleled ease. A recent study published in the
> journal Pediatrics showed that 42 percent of children ages 10 to 17
> had been exposed to online pornography in the past year; 66 percent of
> the exposure was "unwanted."
> Aware of its authority to regulate interstate commerce and of its
> compelling interest in protecting children, Congress has tried for
> more than 10 years to place restrictions on the distribution of online
> pornography, but each attempt has been struck down in the courts.
> Reed's ruling, which excuses online pornographers even from having to
> check identification, is based on his view that today's software
> filters would be more effective at protecting children. There is a
> fundamental flaw in this reasoning that time and again has killed
> congressional efforts to address a profound social problem.
> First Amendment law requires that, when government seeks to promote a
> compelling interest, the means used must restrict the least speech
> possible. In this case, the government's interest is protecting
> children from Internet pornography, the "speech" is pornography, and
> the restriction is the ID check.
> Reed objected to requiring pornographers to restrict their "speech" in
> this temporary way because of the existence of software filters. But
> inherent in a least-restrictive-means analysis is the expectation that
> the "means" are actions taken by the government, not by private
> actors. The "means" are legislative in nature, and therefore
> mandatory, which is why they must not be overly broad.
> Nothing in US constitutional law or history suggests that the people
> are powerless to pass laws that further child safety. A 1968 US
> Supreme Court decision ruled that states may consider that "parents
> and others ... who have this primary responsibility for children's
> well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid
> discharge of that responsibility."
> Many such laws come to mind. Parents teach their children to say no to
> drugs but the law also forbids drug sales to children. Parents warn
> children of the dangers of guns but the law also throws gun dealers in
> jail if they sell to children. Parents tell kids to stay away from
> porn but the law also requires video and convenience store clerks to
> check IDs.
> Reed's decision says there may be no law governing the conduct of online
> pornographers vis-a-vis children, that government may do nothing to
> address a compelling public problem except hope that the market will
> provide effective products for consumers and that these products will be
> purchased and utilized.
> Not only is this not how our laws work, but it also overlooks the
> reality that the most sophisticated screening software can only be
> effective where it is installed. Increasingly, children have access to
> computers over which their parents have no control: at schools,
> neighbors' homes, their own homes, and in libraries. And there's
> certainly no guarantee that computers in any of these places will have
> filtering software, or, if they do, that it is rigorous and effective.
> Parental self-help measures are vitally important in protecting
> children online. But they do not eliminate the need for legal
> accountability for Internet pornographers nor do they supplant the
> constitutional authority of Congress to take action to further this
> compelling interest.
> The Child Online Protection Act requires no more of the porn industry
> than what our laws have always required that they make reasonable
> efforts to ensure that children are not among their customers. Reed's
> ruling surrenders the Internet to a ruthless and exploitative industry
> and nullifies an essential prerogative of civil society -- the
> protection of children.
> Cathy Ruse is a senior fellow of legal studies at the Family Research
> Council in Washington.
> http://www.csmonitor.com | Copyright 2007 The Christian Science Monitor.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The astute reader will note that the
> very same 'internet porn filters' which are so highly touted by the
> judge were in fact the same system the internet 'experts' spoke
> against along with the librarians when the librarians were the object
> of government wrath a couple years ago. Librarians should not be
> expected to use them, nor be held responsible for the use of them
> per the 'experts' who testified in that case. But now, la-tee-dah, it
> appears filters will work just fine. As a matter of fact, so much of
> that trash comes in via email anyway instead of web page browsing. Oh
> well, I have given up trying to worry about it so much anyway. If
> there has ever been a federal judge who was not stupid, I have yet to
> see him in action. The 'credit card as a method of ID' system was
> working quite well. Does this latest stupid ruling serve as encourage-
> ment to the porn guys to stop using even that modicum of protection?
> PAT]
Filters do nothing at all for Usenet "binaries" where there is much
harder stuff than on most web sites.
Rick Merrill (rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com)