U.S. judge rejects Web child porn law

Dom · Sep 11, 2004, 06:12 AM

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania law allowing the state to force Internet service providers to block access to child pornography sites is unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled.

Judge Jan Dubois, of the U.S. court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found on Friday that the law was unconstitutional because technology used to block the sites would also prevent users from accessing sites that had nothing to do with child pornography.

"With the current state of technology, the act cannot be implemented without excessive blocking of innocent speech in violation of the First Amendment," the judge wrote.

The decision could set a national precedent on Internet regulation, said John Morris, staff counsel for the Centre for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based advocacy group that brought the suit against Pennsylvania Attorney General Jerry Pappert.

The other plaintiffs were the American Civil Liberties Union and Plantagenet, a Pennsylvania-based Internet service provider.

"This will send a strong message across to other states that were looking at this case," Morris said. Maryland, New Jersey and Oklahoma have been considering similar laws, he said.

[Read More]

_____________________
Source: Reuters

Vampyromaniac · Sep 11, 2004, 07:20 AM

smart judge

Dom · Sep 11, 2004, 07:47 AM

Although I don't think child porn is right, it is nice to see someone sticking up for civil liberties.

Matth · Sep 11, 2004, 02:43 PM

In the UK, BT have been trialling a similar idea, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07..._bt_cleanfeed/

Though as I understand it, the scope is limited to to images verified as unacceptable (Internet Watch Foundation), though a problem with any such system is the lack of accountability.

Many "net nanny" type applications make a huge number of mistakes - harmless and useful sites blocked because they happen to share a virtual server IP with something blocked.

Besides which, if your ISP blocks something, try using a foreign proxy.

And, as always, censorship is a slippery slope, and once a foothold is gained, there is nothing politicians like more, than more power.

The basic problems of censorship are:
1. Effectiveness of blocking
2. Accuaracy and inconvenience (mis-blocking)
3. Cost
4. Performance
5. Potential for political abuse

Sep 11, 2004, 06:12 AM	#1
Dom DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,940 Rep Power: 0	U.S. judge rejects Web child porn law PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A Pennsylvania law allowing the state to force Internet service providers to block access to child pornography sites is unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled. Judge Jan Dubois, of the U.S. court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, found on Friday that the law was unconstitutional because technology used to block the sites would also prevent users from accessing sites that had nothing to do with child pornography. "With the current state of technology, the act cannot be implemented without excessive blocking of innocent speech in violation of the First Amendment," the judge wrote. The decision could set a national precedent on Internet regulation, said John Morris, staff counsel for the Centre for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based advocacy group that brought the suit against Pennsylvania Attorney General Jerry Pappert. The other plaintiffs were the American Civil Liberties Union and Plantagenet, a Pennsylvania-based Internet service provider. "This will send a strong message across to other states that were looking at this case," Morris said. Maryland, New Jersey and Oklahoma have been considering similar laws, he said. [Read More] _____________________ Source: Reuters

Sep 11, 2004, 07:20 AM	#2
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	smart judge __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Sep 11, 2004, 02:43 PM	#4
Matth Flash Banner Hater Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 3,426 Rep Power: 93 System Specs	In the UK, BT have been trialling a similar idea, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07..._bt_cleanfeed/ Though as I understand it, the scope is limited to to images verified as unacceptable (Internet Watch Foundation), though a problem with any such system is the lack of accountability. Many "net nanny" type applications make a huge number of mistakes - harmless and useful sites blocked because they happen to share a virtual server IP with something blocked. Besides which, if your ISP blocks something, try using a foreign proxy. And, as always, censorship is a slippery slope, and once a foothold is gained, there is nothing politicians like more, than more power. The basic problems of censorship are: 1. Effectiveness of blocking 2. Accuaracy and inconvenience (mis-blocking) 3. Cost 4. Performance 5. Potential for political abuse Last edited by Matth; Sep 11, 2004 at 02:48 PM.

Sep 11, 2004, 07:47 AM	Thread Starter #3
Dom DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,940 Rep Power: 0	Although I don't think child porn is right, it is nice to see someone sticking up for civil liberties.