Free speech advocates and Web site operators argued in federal court Monday that an anti-porn law is flawed and hinders free speech.
Representatives from Salon.com, Nerve.com and other plaintiffs argued that the 1998 Child Online Protection Act could criminalize Web content such as sexual health information, erotic literature, news images and other things, the Washington Post reported.
The law, which has never been enforced, was signed by President Clinton and aimed at preventing children from seeing material deemed harmful to them by requiring proof of age from computer users. Under the law, Web site operators who allow children to view harmful content could be fined up to $50,000 and face up to six months in prison.
Harmful content, under the law, is defined by so-called “contemporary community standards.”
The plaintiffs say in their suit that the term “community standards” is too vague.
Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, argued that filtering software in home computers are more effective in keeping children away from harmful material than the existing law.
Chris Hansen, an attorney with the ACLU, said that the government is basically saying that parents are too stupid to use filtering software.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has sought internal files from search engine firms about what computer users search for while online as part of its argument supporting the law.
