Utah Battles ACLU Over Porn Access For Kids
Posted on August 26, 2005
Excerpt from the desertnews.com follows.
Eleven of the 15 plaintiffs challenging a law passed this year to protect children from Internet pornography may no longer have a case if the Utah attorney general wins a dismissal that was filed Tuesday.
Mark Shurtleff is asking a judge to dismiss the parties because they can’t prove significant damages based on the law that was passed during the 2005 Legislature.
Several bookstores, local artists, the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, various Internet service providers and others filed the original lawsuit against the state in June, attempting to prevent anti-pornography enforcement by the new law.
The law is intended to offer consumers viable protection in the form of an optional filtering system, not one that would be forced upon every user. The requirements would have no effect on Internet users who choose not to block any sites.
“Why would the ACLU want to stop parents from protecting their children from Internet pornography,” said Jerrold Jensen, assistant attorney general representing the state in the lawsuit. “We have ‘adult only’ sections in magazine stores. Why should the Internet be different?”
A fair question Mr. Jensen and one that strikes to the heart of the matter. The ACLU continues its unrelenting war against the traditions, values and freedoms of this country. That is why there is such a ground swell of public opinion against them.
Thank you Indepundit, Mudville Gazette, and Outside The Beltway.
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
11 Responses to “Utah Battles ACLU Over Porn Access For Kids”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Why would the ACLU want to stop parents from protecting their children from internet pornography?
Their is an obvious battle over the hearts, minds and even the bodies of our children. If one minority idealogy wishes to surplant a dominate idealogy, how to best go about it. Pervert the values that support that idealogy via our base nature. Pervert the children and sucess can occur in one generation. Sex is always good for derailing any idealogy. I wonder though if the ACLU is like a Hitler in that if they cannot win they will settle for destroying everything. Maybe the rubble will produce something more to their liking.
Indeed, sometimes I think the ACLU has to have America’s destruction in the forefront of their mind. The First Amendment was never intended to protect filth. It isn’t even speech. It is a sad state America has come to. A crossroads, that we will pass into the darkside if enough people don’t start standing up and doing something about it.
A similar law was struck down in PA. Its quite clearly an unconstitutional restriction on speech, which Utah was made aware of before they passed this law.
Free Speech. Dang that’s funny!
“A similar law was struck down in PA. Its quite clearly an unconstitutional restriction on speech, which Utah was made aware of before they passed this law.”
You know fark…I was willing to give you the benefit of doubt until this one.
You have to be plum stupid or intentionally misleading, not to know the difference between Constitutional free speech and what dummies THINK free speech is these days.
If you want to spout that moronic BS… go over to DU, they eat that ignorant crap up!
“You have to be plum stupid or intentionally misleading, not to know the difference between Constitutional free speech and what dummies THINK free speech is these days.”
I don’t follow. A similar law was struck down in PA. The complaint lays out the problems with the law towards the end. It burdens adult and minors speech (and reading), serves as a prior restraint, and compells speech. Lastly it may violate some cannons of federalism, such as the dormant commerce clause and preemption by the Communications Decency Act.
So some ignorant judge ruled in favor of it, doesn’t mean it is truly unconstitutional. It is our opinion here that the First Amendment says nowhere in it that a parent can not restrict what their child can and can not view. Some stupid judge thinks otherwise, that was his opinion. I just hope he didn’t fool himself into actually thinking he was doing his job of interpreting the Constitution strictly…when obviously their had to be some creative influence of his opinion involved.
“It is our opinion here that the First Amendment says nowhere in it that a parent can not restrict what their child can and can not view.”
Parents can still do that. some stupid legislator wrote a law that does something else.
“So some ignorant judge ruled in favor of it, doesn’t mean it is truly unconstitutional.”
People wouldn’t be stupid as to say these sorts of things without knowing what they’re talking about.
People wouldn’t be stupid as to say these sorts of things without knowing what they’re talking about.
It doesn’t seem to stop you.
“It doesn’t seem to stop you.”
You’d be surprised about what some people — judges and lawyers included — know.
Or, think they know.