First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
 
High court affirms decision in Net obscenity case

By The Associated Press
03.21.06

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court turned back an appeal yesterday from a photographer who claimed a federal decency law violated her free-speech rights to post pictures of sadomasochistic sexual behavior on the Web.

Justices affirmed a decision last year by a special three-judge federal panel upholding the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which makes it a crime to send obscenity over the Internet to children.

The Court could have used the case to set online obscenity standards. The subject of children and indecency has gotten more attention recently.

Last week the government renewed its crackdown on indecent television by proposing nearly $4 million in fines for controversial broadcasts.

The Supreme Court appeal was brought by photographer Barbara Nitke, whose work is featured in the book Kiss of Fire: A Romantic View of Sadomasochism, and by the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom.

Material that is obscene is not protected by the First Amendment, but Nitke’s lawyer contends her work is art that is not obscene.

Justices were told by attorney John Wirenius of New York that if they turned down the case, “many more Internet users will likely face the constitutionally unsupportable choice faced by Ms. Nitke: either to censor her published images or risk prosecution.”

The law requires that those sending obscene communications on the Internet take reasonable actions to keep it away from children, like requiring a credit card, debit account or adult access code as proof of age.

The Bush administration had urged justices to stay out of the case.

The case is Nitke v. Gonzales, 05-526.


Previous
Special court: Net-obscenity law not unconstitutional
Considering challenge to part of Communications Decency Act, federal panel says evidence insufficient for it to find act violates Constitution. 07.26.05

Related

Net-porn law relied too heavily on content restrictions, Court holds

By Tony Mauro But Justice Kennedy doesn't rule out that Child Online Protection Act could be found constitutional if someone can show it's least-restrictive way to protect kids online. 06.30.04

2005-06 Supreme Court case tracker

Internet & First Amendment overview


Indecency online

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print


Last system update: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 | 22:54:45
 SEARCH  MORE
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
Video/RSS/podcasts
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment
reports

First Reports
Supreme Court
Experts
Columnists
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Glossary
Freedom Sings™
Events
First Amendment
Schools

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment
Library

Lesson plans
freedomforum.org
Newseum
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links