Is online porn protected under "free speech"?

[samintx]

It is harmful to children that get access to it. Isn't that one of the guides to whether free speech is allowed? "Is it harmful".

Should porn be protected as free speech?

[MacMagus]

Porn is protected as free speech.

The protected expression of it is limited under local obscenity laws under a similar rationale as the incitement to riot limitations apply to other forms of speech (public welfare). Legal limitations must be narrowly tailored and cannot be more restrictive than necessary to protect suspect-classes.

Not hard to find an example:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2004/06/64028

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a law meant to punish pornographers who peddle dirty pictures to Web-surfing kids is probably an unconstitutional muzzle on free speech.

The high court divided 5-to-4 over a law passed in 1998, signed by then-President Clinton and now backed by the Bush administration. The majority said a lower court was correct to block the law from taking effect because it likely violates the First Amendment.

...

Material that is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment....

[Spock]

How to get past the First Amendment? Don't make a law, come to a private agreement. Let an NGO decide what you can access. Its for the children, so it must be right, right?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/nyregi....html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This blog entry is on point.

I would suggest much more forcefully, efforts by ISPs to cut off access to any particular class of content may make it more difficult for "casual" searchers to access such sites, but will likely be largely ineffective against anyone with the will to work a bit harder to find such material -- and that's not even taking into account private, encrypted distribution networks.

In practice, of course -- as I've written many times -- effective censorship of the Internet is impossible. You can make access more difficult or more of a hassle, but in the end censorship efforts -- even for seemingly laudable goals -- will drive the materials of interest ever deeper underground into forms that make them even more difficult to track. That's just the way it is, like it or not.

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000389.html

Will the ISP's lose their common carrier status?

Thin end of the censorship wedge.

[kj]

That whole argument is a joke. Online porn is protected because it's lucrative, period. kj.

[$tevie]

People who want to limit access on THEIR computers to various things have all the right in the world to do so. Instead of being lazy and expecting somebody to clean the internet up for you ("you" meaning "one" -- not anybody who has posted in this thread), use the available technology to protect your children your own darned self. Everybody's standards are different about when something stops being risque and starts being porn.

[deckeda]

Best porn filter in the world is computer access limited to a workstation that faces a wall or corner, with the rest of the room open. Supply supervision and interaction and you are done.

[karsen]

[quote deckeda]Best porn filter in the world is computer access limited to a workstation that faces a wall or corner, with the rest of the room open. Supply supervision and interaction and you are done.
Not if you're into that sort of thing.

[lafinfil]

If you can beat them ... then tax them http://www.kutv.com/content/news/waterco...d6e1c31b37

[Lux Interior]

[quote kj]Online porn is protected because it's lucrative, period.
Are you saying that political contributions are preventing lawmakers from doing anything about it?

It's simple supply & demand. People demand it and others supply. You have as much chance of ridding the internet of porn as you have of understanding the lolcat phenomenon.

[Lux Interior]

Oh, and don't forget rule #34.