CHILD PORN WEBSITE LAW CALLED INEPT

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:28:04 -0500
From: Randall <rvh40 () INSIGHTBB COM>

[Kat Sunlove publishes Free Speech X-press, a weekly newsletter focused
on Adult Entertainment and its intersection with the law. She can be
reached at sunlove () direcway com.]

====
CHILD PORN WEBSITE LAW CALLED INEPT
PHILADELPHIA, PA -- The ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Washington-based
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), seeking to overturn a state law
aimed at fighting Internet child pornography, have told U.S. District
Judge Jan E. DuBois in opening trial statements that the law is
well-intentioned but technologically misguided.
        Under the law, after receiving notice from the state attorney
general of child porn reports, an ISP has five days to block users
access to the website. Failure to comply carries fines of up to $30,000
and jail terms of up to seven years. Over 500 such notices have been
sent out and ISPs have all reportedly complied with the law.
        However, according to some ISPs, including America Online,
Verizon and Worldcom, there was  no choice -- given technical issues and
time frame for compliance -- but to block the access to sites that did
not contain child pornography. In some cases, these blocks denied access
to the sites for all North American subscribers. Attorneys for the CDT
argue that over 1 million websites not containing child pornography have
been blocked since the attorney generals office started sending out
notices to ISPs in April 2002.
         The idea of Pennsylvania blocking sites was a misguided attempt
of censorship by clueless public service officials, said networking
consultant Mike Sweeney. If they had taken the time to talk to
knowledgeable technical people the state of Pennsylvania would have been
spared the embarrassment of looking like a bunch of luddites who are
technically inept.
        Besides arguing that there are techniques to reduce over
blocking websites, the attorney generals office said blocking access to
websites doesnt interfere with free speech because Internet addresses
arent real.
        A URL is neither a person, nor a real forum, nor a limited
commodity. It is a little string of letters and numbers that acts as a
superficial label, argued the AGs office.
>From Jason Straziuso, Associated Press, 1/7/04
http://www.newsobserver.com/24hour/nation/story/1109147p-7738989c.html
And from Michelle Delio, Wired.com, 1/8/04
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61840,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_7
And from Andy Sullivan, Reuters, 1/6/04
http://news.findlaw.com/business/s/20040106/techpornographypennsylvaniadc.html


**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to: Cyberia-L-Request () listserv aol com
********************************************************************** 

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/