This past week, almost every news source screamed bold headlines that read as follows: “Judge Throws Out Internet Blocking Law,” “Judge Puts Porn Access Burden On Parents,” and ”Judge Tosses Law That Makes It a Crime for Web Sites to Let Kids Access 'Harmful' Material.”

After a month-long trial revolving around 1998’s Child Online Protection Act, the Judge’s verdict is finally in: Parents, not the court or government, need to be more responsible for their kids’ welfare!

Judge Lowell Reed Jr., Philadelphia’s Senior Federal Judge, passed the verdict that would block 1998’s online pornography law, a law which sought to make sites containing “harmful” content inaccessible to minors.  The proposed law would also penalize obscene websites with a $50,000 fine and a prison term of up to six months.

This was a surprise move on Judge Reed’s part, considering how he seemingly empathized with the law.

However, Judge Reed justified his ruling by stating that the Child Online Protection Act was too feeble and extensive.  Reed further supported his decision by stating that kids would become unhappy adults if the court limited their free speech rights.  

Reed suggested a few less limiting alternatives that parents can adopt, such as software filters that monitor and limit a ward’s Internet use.  Government lawyers have denounced these alternatives “burdensome and less effective.”

It’s obvious that the verdict has mixed results, not only on the federal level, but also on a local level.

Civil libertarians such as Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, heralded the ruling, asserting that, if the Child Online Protection Act had passed, the Internet would have “dumbed” down. 

Still, others simply find the verdict frustrating.

Donna Rice Hughes, representative of Internet pornography watchdog group, Enough Is Enough, critically noted, “Pornographers continue to get a free pass on the Internet from our federal courts, and efforts by Congress keep getting trumped.”
 
Meanwhile, plaintiffs expect an appeal to Judge Reed’s verdict on the Child Online Protection Act. 

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the United States attorney’s office, said the department is still reviewing the 84-page decision and has "made no determination as to what the government’s next step will be."

John Morris, a lawyer with the Center for Democracy and Technology, wrote a brief that expressed his hope that “Attorney General (Alberto) Gonzales would save the U.S. public's money” from being squandered on defending an “unconstitutional statute.”  Morris said that the money can instead be better used in “educating kids about Internet safety issues."

This is the second time that the law has been rejected by a federal court ruling.  In 1997, it was struck down by the high court.  A 2004 injunction upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court never let the law, signed by President Bill Clinton, take effect.