Porn Law Trial Concludes, Ruling in Spring

Monday marked the end of closing arguments in a four-week trial aimed at overturning a 1998 law aimed at curbing pornography. While proponents of the law saw it is necessary to prevent children from viewing objectionable material, opponents say it hurts free speech.

The law is too broad, lawyers for the ACLU and others argued, and violates the Constitution. Children can be similarly protected through the use of filters, opponents added. However, government lawyers said filtering is not enough, citing evidence to the contrary.

They argue most parents do not "actively" use the filters, and the law was necessary to protect children. It is all but certain that regardless of the judge's ruling, expected next spring, it would be appealed and possibly could be heard again by the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Bill Clinton signed the law in 1998, but it has never taken effect. Shortly after the signing, an injunction was filed, and the law ruled unconstitutional by both district and appeals courts. The Supreme Court allowed the injunction to stand, but sent it back to the district court for a full trial.

If allowed to stand, those who violate the law could be subject to fines of up to $50,000 per day.

"Since Congress passed this law, the Internet has changed and it is now clear that this harsh, criminal law won't come close to achieving its goals," ACLU senior attorney Chris Hansen said. "The constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech applies to all mediums of communication, including the Internet."