Two of the most passionate causes in American life - the protection of children and the promotion of free speech - arrive simultaneously at the US Supreme Court today in a major case that will help define the scope of constitutional freedoms in cyberspace.

At issue before the high court is how best to protect children from pornography on the World Wide Web without violating rights guaranteed in the First Amendment that permit adult access to the same material.

On a broader level, the case, Ashcroft v. ACLU, is significant because it could establish the initial contours of any future government regulation of the Web. Alternatively, it could move the Internet further from federal oversight and hasten its development as a free-wheeling marketplace for an infinite range of images and ideas - whether good or bad, benevolent or dangerous.

"This is a crossroads case," says Marjorie Heins of the New York-based National Coalition Against Censorship.

The current Supreme Court term is shaping up as an important one for Internet regulation and pornography. Last month, the justices heard arguments in a case examining whether a computer-generated depiction of a child engaged in sexual activity amounts to illegal child pornography.

Possession or distribution of child pornography is a federal offense. Much of it is traded or sold over the Internet.

The case now before the court deals with a different aspect of pornography and the Internet.

In passing the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998, Congress sought to shield minors from the proliferation of pornographic material on adult websites. The law calls for the use of age verification mechanisms such as credit cards or adult identification numbers.

But a three-judge panel of the Third Federal Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law in a June 2000 decision based on a challenge filed in federal court in Philadelphia.

Supporters of the law see it as an Internet version of various state laws requiring that adult pornography magazines considered harmful to minors be sold behind a store counter or displayed in a way that prevents the adult content from being viewed by children in the store.

Opponents of COPA say the law isn't tailored narrowly enough to avoid violating the rights of adults because it makes it harder for some adults to gain access to Internet pornography. They also say the law could be used to crack down on a wide range of sexually explicit material on the Web, which may be objectionable to adults in some communities but not to adults in others.

Under the law, adult website operators are subject to criminal sanctions should children be able to gain access to material deemed "indecent" for minors as determined by "contemporary community standards."

Page: 1 | 2