WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court blocked a law meant to shield Web-surfing children from explicit pictures and online come-ons, ruling Tuesday that the law also would cramp the free speech rights of adults to see and buy what they want on the Internet.
Technology such as filtering software may better protect children from unsavory material than such laws, the court said in a 5-4 ruling.
“Filters are less restrictive” and thus pose less risk of muzzling free speech, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “They impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source.”
Numerous software companies market products that parents can install on a home computer to sift out objectionable material. Filtering software tries to block Web sites based on preferences set by the user.
The 1998 law, signed by then-President Clinton and backed by the Bush administration, would require adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would punish violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time.
It has been on hold during the court challenge on behalf of artists, bookstores, an online sex therapist, a gynecological information site and others. The American Civil Liberties Union argued the law could make criminals out of anyone who offered racy or explicit material to adults.
The ruling in Ashcroft v. ACLU was the last of nearly 80 cases decided in a busy court term that ended Tuesday. The year’s marquee cases involving presidential power to deal with terror suspects were announced Monday, and for the most part represented a setback for the Bush administration.
Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo denounced the ruling.
“Our society has reached a broad consensus that child obscenity is harmful to our youngest generation and must be stopped,” Corallo said. “Congress has repeatedly attempted to address this serious need and the court yet again opposed these commonsense measures to protect America’s children.”
Also on Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that foreigners sometimes can use American courts to sue over alleged international human rights abuses, a decision that could allow courts to hear claims about things such as inmate mistreatment in Iraq and forced slavery in impoverished countries.
The justices said a 1789 law permits lawsuits by foreign nationals in U.S. courts under certain circumstances. Human rights advocates said the decision leaves room for cases that already have been filed, while inviting more.
The law was cited earlier this month in a California lawsuit accusing two U.S. defense contractors of conspiring to torture, rape and kill Iraqi prisoners.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
