A Constitutionally Protected Right to Market Pornography to Children?
A federal district judge has recently ruled that the Children’s Online Protection Act is an unconstitutional suppression of free speech. The law requires porn site operators to verify that patrons are 18 years old before giving them access to pornography. The lawsuit, brought by the ACLU on behalf of several sexual health sites and salon.com, states that this is a burdensome requirement and has a chilling effect on free speech. This position is absurd.
The law has been in effect now for 9 years. There is a clear track record to how the law is applied and to what content it applies to. If the law was signed 9 days ago, one could make a claim about a potential problem. However, after 9 years there have been apparently no cases in which a legitimate sexual health site has been prosecuted or that other speech has been curtailed.
More importantly, this law requires no change to the content of these websites. People remain as free before and after this law to peddle pornography. The law is only a regulatory requirement on how the content is accessed not on what content can be produced. It is a rather silly argument that sexual health sites would be blocked when they contain similar content as most comprehensive sexual education classes in public schools taught to 7th graders.
There is no apparent evidence that any sexual health site has been shut down because of this law. Even more apparent is that salon.com (a news and commentary site) has never been targeted by this law. It says something that salon.com is concerned about an on-line porn law, and I’m not sure it’s the message they want to convey. Apparently politically pornography is not limited to Rush Limbaugh anymore.
The ACLU, apparently, agrees that there is a legitimate interest in keeping minors from pornography. They simply argue it would be a better policy to have parents install internet filters on their computer. This would help if parents controlled every computer a child might access.
Considering that a majority of home computers on the internet don’t even have anti-virus installed, however, means that likely parents, as a rule, aren’t technically proficient to install and maintain these filters, much less keep their technically-savvy children from bypassing those filters. They do make a good point that parents should be responsible for what children see online, but that point should be made to the Legislature not the Judiciary.
The argument that the law is burdensome on websites is simply false. After a one-time installation of the software and arranging a credit-card verification system (that would likely have to be in place anyway considering most porn sites are in the business of making money), there is next to no maintenance on such software. The burden is on the consumer to enter their information. That burden is about 30 seconds. It is hard to see what the entire weight of the US Constitution needs to be brought to bear to save internet chat room perverts 30 seconds in getting to their porno.
The most dangerous thing about this lawsuit and those like it, is that it is an obvious usurpation of the Legislature. By taking this case to court there are only two parties who get to influence the outcome, one solitary lobbying group (the ACLU) and a government lawyer who is accountable to no voter. The ACLU could have lobbied Congress to change the law, they have not. Since the argument isn’t over the right of children to access porn, but for regulation on how a website distributes content, it is obviously a political question that has no place in the courts. No one seems to be arguing that children have an absolute right to pornography; it is simply the means by which their viewing can be restricted.
The constant running to a court to change democratically passed laws indicates contempt for the voters of this nation. Yet again, the ACLU has created another issue in which the voters cannot be trusted. The issue of how children should be restricted from access to pornography could easily be solved in the legislature, apparently voters and legislators can’t be trusted to act appropriately. So much for freedom.
After 9 years of this law being in place, there is no reason to strike it down for “chilling” free speech that is in no way regulated by this law. There is no legitimate fear that sexual health information will be restricted. There is certainly no fear that political pornographers will be taken offline. This is a brazen attempt by the ACLU to end-run the legislative process and the will of the voters to impose values on America that Americans obviously don’t want.
Upon reading this article, again the ACLU has come to the rescue of the Porn industry, as well as continuing to destroy the very core of this country’s morals, or should I say what’s left of them. To call men like Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson reverands is hypocrysy at it’s greatest. It’s ok for them to have their driver’s arrested for drunk driving, father children and lie to their wives etc, just as it is for many others, but heaven forbid if a white minister falters or falls. I’ve never been a bigot, nor will I lower myself to that level. I want to see men of integrity, like my Grandfather who was a TRUE man of the Gospel. A man who worked a full-time job, as well as pastor and start several churches because of his love for the ministry, not for the almighty dollar. A man who took care of my ailing grandmother for 65 yrs. A man who continued to minister to others until he passed away at 93. So how dare these so called REVEREND’s call themselves such. How dare they put our children and grandchildren in further jeapordy to protect someone who is NOT in danger.
Comment by Brenda | March 22, 2007
What part of free speech and expression do you not understand, the court was correct in its interpretation. The parents can use one of numerous parental control programs that will block the sites from kids and it is their responsibility to protect their kids and not the governments job to do it for them. What has happened to personal responsibility in this country, way too many people want to push the responsibility on to others instead of where it belongs.
Comment by Jon | March 23, 2007
Jon - what part of protection of CHILDREN do you not understand? If you remember, the ACLU also sued when a public library wanted to block porn sites, and has also sued on behalf of NAMBLA. This is not about free speech, this is about the aclu eroding the values this country was founded on, by corrupting children.
While parents can put safeguards in place at their home, what about the child going to a friend’s house? What about the child going to a baby-sitter’s house? What about the child going anywhere that the net is available and not blocked? Are parents now expected to keep their kids home 100% of the time?
Again, Jon, this is NOT about free speech, because if it were, this would not be the only thing happening. Why can’t porn be shown on non-cable TV? Why can’t you say the “7 Dirty Words” on the radio? Why can’t you have more graphic violence on TV? Are those not also forms of expression?
The reason, because this is not a free speech issue, this is an issue where the aclu is once again trying to erradicate every last vestige of the Christian value system this country was founded on.
Comment by Smokey | March 23, 2007
Of course we support child pornography and the war of other countries! Why wouldn’t we?
Sickening isn’t it? Makes me want to move to Canada and give up my free speech and right to arms.
Comment by Callie | March 23, 2007
[...] H/T to Part Time Pundit Listen to this podcast [...]
Pingback by Smoke Signals Blog » Blog Archive » Distributing porn to kids is now a right? | March 24, 2007
Yeah, it is about free speech and expression, some people like you obviously pick and choose what you think constitutes free speech and expression.
No smokey, you are absolutely wrong on this one, we as parents are responsible to protect our children from harmful viewing on the Internet and if you use the parental controls that are available they work very well. Why should other peoples rights to free speech and expression be trampled just because parents don’t use these tools that exist.
This has nothing to do with Christian values, this has to do with people expecting the government to do their parenting for them. No one says your kids have to have free run of the Internet, it is our job as parents to be sure that they aren’t exposed to harmful material.
Comment by Jon | March 25, 2007