TheEnforcer
03-26-2007, 08:07 PM
http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/43013826.html
First Amendment Was Not Intended to Provide a License to Sell Smut Without Any Legal Obligation to Restrict Children's Access
Response to Latest COPA Decision from Morality In Media President Robert Peters
Contact: Robert Peters, President, Morality in Media, 212-870-3210
NEW YORK, Mar. 26 /Standard Newswire/ -- Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media, issued the following statement in response to a decision last Thursday by a federal district court judge in Philadelphia that invalidated the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) on the grounds that parental use of screening technology is a "less restrictive means."
"Thanks to the federal courts in Philadelphia and the Supreme Court, more than a decade has now passed since Congress first acted to protect children from Internet pornography, and there are still no enforceable laws that require persons who commercially distribute pornography on the Internet to take reasonable steps to restrict children's access to the material.
"Today, if a child were to walk into an 'adult bookstore,' he or she would be told to leave, because it is against the law to sell pornography to children in real space. But if that same child were to 'click' to most commercial websites that distribute pornography, he or she could view pornography free of charge and without restriction, because when it comes to 'cyberspace,' the federal courts think it is up to parents to keep children away from Internet pornography.
First Amendment Was Not Intended to Provide a License to Sell Smut Without Any Legal Obligation to Restrict Children's Access
Response to Latest COPA Decision from Morality In Media President Robert Peters
Contact: Robert Peters, President, Morality in Media, 212-870-3210
NEW YORK, Mar. 26 /Standard Newswire/ -- Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media, issued the following statement in response to a decision last Thursday by a federal district court judge in Philadelphia that invalidated the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) on the grounds that parental use of screening technology is a "less restrictive means."
"Thanks to the federal courts in Philadelphia and the Supreme Court, more than a decade has now passed since Congress first acted to protect children from Internet pornography, and there are still no enforceable laws that require persons who commercially distribute pornography on the Internet to take reasonable steps to restrict children's access to the material.
"Today, if a child were to walk into an 'adult bookstore,' he or she would be told to leave, because it is against the law to sell pornography to children in real space. But if that same child were to 'click' to most commercial websites that distribute pornography, he or she could view pornography free of charge and without restriction, because when it comes to 'cyberspace,' the federal courts think it is up to parents to keep children away from Internet pornography.