Judge Trashes Online Porn Law
A US Federal Court yesterday ruled that a 1998 law designed to block children from viewing pornography Web sites violates free speech rights.
Judge Lowell Reed of the Philadelphia US District Court ruled that while he sympathizes with the aim of restricting minors from viewing pornography, other less restrictive means such as software filters are available to block such content.
The good judge wrote that despite his personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect children from harmful material, he is blocking the law out of concern that perhaps they might be doing harm to the minors of USA by chipping away at First Amendment protections in the name of protection.
He further wrote that he would be turning a blind eye to the law by upholding a flawed statute, especially when a more effective and less restrictive alternative is readily available to protect America’s youth.
This – when all along during the four-week trial, government lawyers argued that Internet filters are ineffective tools as most parents do not actively use them.
Actually the ruling sides with a challenge brought by the American Civil Liberties Union that said the provisions of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act are too restrictive and violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects free speech.
No surprise then – that Civil Libertarians are lauding Judge Reed’s decision as a victory for free speech and Internet creativity.
Internet Porn and Free Speech
Ant Fraud Yields Death Sentence
The company’s name in Chinese — at 20 characters — was unusually long in a language known for brevity, and it purported to show that the company was involved in plastics, machine tools, electrical machinery, fisheries, wine, soft drinks, silk and even chicken breeding. On the surface, at least, the company thrived, with 10 subsidiaries and 800 employees.
Wang’s picture was often snapped as he stood next to government officials. His company was known for its philanthropy and was the subject of a propaganda piece in the local newspapers.
Su Changhong, deputy leader of the economic investigations unit for the Liaoning police, said Wang, who was married with three children, was known for giving gifts of large sums of cash to friends and relatives. “It was a way to show off his identity as a really rich guy,” Su said.
But law enforcement officials say there was a dark side to the happy family man. He kept two mistresses, they said, and more importantly, his company was a facade, built on a pyramid scheme.
The company’s advertisements called out to investors with an enticing offer: Invest the equivalent of about $1,300. Get two boxes of “rare” ants. Raise them for the company, and 10 times a year get $52 for your work. In one year, a participant would make about $520, a whopping 40 percent return.
People did get paid, at first, but it turned out that those high returns were being financed not by profits from real economic activity but by money flowing in from subsequent investors. The term doesn’t exist in China, but in the United States, that would be called a Ponzi scheme, after Charles Ponzi, a Boston scammer who briefly became a millionaire in 1920 by using such a fraud.
china