Child Online Protection Act Appeal Rejected

TarrVetus writes "The Associated Press reports that a federal appeals court in Philadelphia has ruled that the Child Online Protection Act will not be revived, upholding a 2007 decision that the unimplemented 1998 law is unconstitutional. The law, which made it a crime for websites to allow children access to 'harmful' material, was declared a violation of the First Amendment because of existing elective filtering technologies and parental controls that are less restrictive to free speech than the 'ineffective' and 'overly broad' ban."

Comments

Re:The System

[Anonymous Coward]

> "If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into dumbing down of the Internet," said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Whoa whoa whoa, since when has Chris Hansen become is a pro-pedo lawyer?

Re:The System

[nsayer]

Whoosh.

For those who also do not feel the gust of air from the joke flying over your head, let me google it for you.

Re:The System

[kohaku]

that some authority deems "harmful", like pictures of naked female breasts.

I hope you're joking. Have you seen the state of the world today? It's a shambles! The economy is collapsing, and I think we all know the reason. Every single one of our children sees naked female breasts from the very day they're born. This has to stop, and it has to stop now: the children are our future, and if we don't protect them from the naked horrors of pornography, who will?

Re:A very intelligent person

[blueg3]

Since I started watching the Cookie Monster on Sesame Street when I was 3, I've gained 160 pounds.

Re:It's hard for parents to do this

[MatthewCCNA]

I completely doubt that porn harms anyone

carpal tunnel?

Re:No more intro pages for porn sites?

[dangitman]

Normally I just threw in whatever random responses I knew would put it over 18 and then moved forward.

... and then backward, and then forward again...