High Court to Hear Internet Porn Case

The Supreme Court said Monday that it will consider reviving a disputed law that makes it a crime to put on the Internet sexually explicit material that can be viewed by minors.

The case once again pits the free-speech rights of adults against the government’s interest in protecting children.

Four years ago, the justices struck down a broad federal law designed to protect children from computer pornography. That law, the Communications Decency Act, left the sponsors of adult-oriented Web sites--and even sponsors of art museum sites--nearly defenseless to a charge that they had exposed children to nude photographs or other inappropriate material.

Undaunted, Congress in 1998 passed a somewhat narrower law. It applies to sites on the World Wide Web that operate for “commercial purposes.” And it says sponsors can protect themselves by requiring users to furnish a credit card number or an adult access code.

But lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the new law, the Child Online Protection Act.

A federal judge in Philadelphia blocked the law from going into effect. Last year, the U.S. court of appeals affirmed that decision.

The lower court judges concluded the law was vague. It says Web sites may not post material that is “harmful to minors” based on “contemporary community standards.” That approach would allow the most conservative community in America to set the standards, the judges said, because a Web site posted in San Francisco can be accessed in Provo, Utah.

They also said the requirement of using credit cards or access numbers would pose a burden. Many free sites also might be deemed “commercial” because they post ads. And some of these sites, such as bookstores, art galleries or AIDS support groups, might include material unsuitable for children.

“At present, due to technological limitations, there may be no means by which harmful material on the Web may be constitutionally restricted,” wrote Judge Leonard Garth of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. He mentioned, however, software that screens out content.

Justice Department lawyers appealed on behalf of Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, arguing that the revised law is more narrow and focused, and should not be struck down just because it could cause problems for Web sites.

On Monday, the court said it will hear the case of Ashcroft vs. the ACLU, 00-1293, in the fall.