{"id":6319,"date":"2004-09-23T06:58:25","date_gmt":"2004-09-23T13:58:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/2004\/09\/23\/babies-and-bathwater.html"},"modified":"2004-09-23T06:58:25","modified_gmt":"2004-09-23T13:58:25","slug":"babies_and_bath","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2004\/09\/23\/babies_and_bath.html","title":{"rendered":"Babies and bathwater"},"content":{"rendered":"

A federal court has overturned Pennsylvania’s child internet pr0n law<\/a>, arguing that the state ordering ISPs to block IP addresses — regardless of whether or not others are on that same IP address who are not peddling such filth — is unconstitutional<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Based on the evidence presented by the parties at trial, the Court concludes that, with the current state of technology, the Act cannot be implemented without excessive blocking of innocent speech in violation of the First Amendment. In addition, the procedures provided by the Act are insufficient to justify the prior restraint of material protected by the First Amendment and, given the current design of the Internet, the Act is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause because of its affect on interstate commerce.<\/p>\n

The elimination of child pornography is an important goal and those responsible for the creation or distribution of child pornography should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. To that end, all of the ISPs involved in the case have given defendant their complete cooperation. Notwithstanding this effort, there is little evidence that the Act has reduced the production of child pornography or the child sexual abuse associated with its creation. On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence that implementation of the Act has resulted in massive suppression of speech protected by the First Amendment. For these reasons, and the other reasons set forth in the Memorandum, the Court is ineluctably led to conclude the Act is unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

Part of the “suppression of speech” has not only been the blocking of websites that happen to be on the same IP address (or URL) as child pr0n sites, but the “Informal Notice” process the state used did not require any court order in conjunction with blocking sites. Nor was there any subsequent review of sites (or IP addresses) in the future to see if they still needed blocking. And, of course, national ISPs were ending up having to block sites to customers in all states based on the direction of officials in one state.<\/p>\n

Interesting decision to read, and a good one to have had handed down.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A federal court has overturned Pennsylvania’s child internet pr0n law, arguing that the state ordering ISPs to block IP addresses — regardless of whether or not others are on that…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6319","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-zt-pc"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":32610,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2013\/02\/23\/concealed-carry-not-a-constitutional-right.html","url_meta":{"origin":6319,"position":0},"title":"Concealed Carry not a constitutional right?","author":"***Dave","date":"Sat 23-Feb-13 3:04pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Makes sense to me, though the federal courts have been quite inconsistent about it (and an appeals court just ruled that blanket banning of it was unconstitutional).Reshared post from +The Denver Post\"We conclude that the carrying of concealed firearms is not protected by the Second Amendment . . .\" Justice\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":32321,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2013\/01\/25\/a-twist-in-the-doma-case.html","url_meta":{"origin":6319,"position":1},"title":"A twist in the DOMA case","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 25-Jan-13 8:49am","format":false,"excerpt":"The Obama Administration announced in 2011 that it agreed with lower court rulings that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional and declined to defend it. \u00a0The GOP-led House chose to defend the law on appeal to the Supreme Court. \u00a0Now a lawyer appointed by the Supreme Court itself\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":137039,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2018\/09\/05\/north-carolinas-gop-manage-to-successfully-run-out-the-clock-on-gerrymandering.html","url_meta":{"origin":6319,"position":2},"title":"North Carolina’s GOP manage to successfully run out the clock on gerrymandering","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 5-Sep-18 11:18pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Though a federal court found that the state legislature's districting plan is rigged to favor the GOP and \"constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment, and Article I of the Constitution,\" the same court has now ruled that\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/north-carolina-gerrymander.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":28050,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/05\/31\/doma-ruled-unconstitutional-again-some-more.html","url_meta":{"origin":6319,"position":3},"title":"DOMA ruled unconstitutional (again, some more)","author":"***Dave","date":"Thu 31-May-12 11:48am","format":false,"excerpt":"Good. It's the only federal law I'm aware of that trumps a state's traditional prerogative to decide who is or is not married by their law, and for no other reason than folks didn't like the idea of gay marriage. Embedded Link Appeals Court Rules DOMA Unconstitutional The federal government\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":49302,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2015\/01\/21\/ben-carson-needs-to-study-the-constitution-a-bit-more.html","url_meta":{"origin":6319,"position":4},"title":"Ben Carson needs to study the Constitution a bit more","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 21-Jan-15 11:28am","format":false,"excerpt":"Carson, who is sort of a darling \"outsider\" proto-candidate on the GOP side for the 2016 Presidential Elections, seems to think that federal judges have no business telling states that their laws are unconstitutional, esp. regarding civil rights for gays and marriage equality.'The states have a mechanism whereby they can\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":28160,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/06\/06\/another-federal-court-strikes-down-doma.html","url_meta":{"origin":6319,"position":5},"title":"Another federal court strikes down DOMA","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 6-Jun-12 5:28pm","format":false,"excerpt":"In this case, ruling unconstitutional a large estate tax imposed by the IRS on a woman who inherited property from her legally recognized (by the state) wife.(And chalk that up to yet another aspect of married life that \"some simple contracts with a lawyer\" can't simulate.)Note that this was case\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6319","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6319"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6319\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}