WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Courtheard oral arguments March 2 in a case questioning whether a law that punishescommercial Web site operators who make “harmful” sexual material available tominors violates the First Amendment. This is the second time theSupreme Court has heard arguments involving the constitutionality of the ChildOnline Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1998. In the first case, theSupreme Court ruled in May 2002 that the law’s definition of “harmful” sexualmaterial as defined by “contemporary community standards” did not make the lawunconstitutional. The second case, Ashcroft v. ACLU II, centers onwhether the act restricted adults’ access to constitutionally protected sexualmaterial online. Congress passed the act to shield minors under the ageof 17 from online sexual material, such as pornography.During thehearing, Ann Beeson, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney, presented concerns online publishers andartists have with the Child Online Protection Act.The act “criminalizesspeech adults have the right to access,” Beeson said, noting the lawcriminalizes some Web site content that is not sexual, such as the word “breast”or a description of nudity. Sexual material that lacks value for minors may havevalue for adults, she added. Beeson said the law would result in anonline publisher being jailed not because they deliberately made sexual materialavailable to minors, but simply because they published “constitutionallyprotected” material in the first place. The law encourages onlinepublishers to self-censor their work, which violates the First Amendment, Beesonsaid. Representing the U.S. government, Solicitor General TheodoreOlson argued that children can easily access pornography via an online key-wordsearch. He said pornography is often difficult for minors to avoid because somedomain names are deceptive. He cited a Web site with a domain name similar tothe one used to access the Web site for the White House, which — contraryto what its name suggests — is a pornographic site. Olson said itis important that all three branches of government be concerned about protectingchildren from online pornography. “[Pornography] is hurting our mostimportant resource, our children,” he said.A decision in the case isexpected by the end of June.
Read previous coverage
- Supreme Court will rehear case on Child Online Protection Act News Flash, 10/16/2003
- Supreme Court weighs online protection act The Report, Winter 2001-02
- Federal court blocks state Internet ban The Report, Winter 1999-2000
- Internet censorship battle rages on The Report, Spring 1999
- Judge halts enforcement of new federal Internet censorship law News Flash, 2/5/1999