In its ruling Tuesday, the federal appeals court concluded that the Child Online Protection Act is unconstitutionally overly broad and vague. The court also ruled that the law violates the First Amendment because filtering technologies and other parental control tools offer a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online. Full Story »
Posted by Chris Finnie
Nice rounded coverage that gives a good amount of background on other laws and prior rulings. It warms my heart that my government doesn't care about protecting me from dangerous chemicals in my food, air, and water--or even in products I buy. But they're this concerned about online smut. We saw how successful it was to try to ban alcohol. Sexually explicit material seems equally difficult to get rid of. And I frankly don't see why we try. We have bigger fish to fry.
Retrieving Comments
