Justices refuse to uphold porn law

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 Bill 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.

In considering the issue a third time, the court did not end a long fight, however. The majority voted to send the case back to a lower court for a trial that could give the government a chance to prove the law does not go too far.

The ruling in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties marks the third time the high court has considered the 6-year-old law, which has never gone into effect because of various court challenges.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff expressed disappointment in Tuesday's ruling, saying it shows that at least five Supreme Court justices are out of touch with just how easily children can get their hands on pornography on the Internet.

"It gets frustrating because we in law enforcement and public safety know how bad the problem really is," Shurtleff said.

The issue goes beyond free-speech rights, he said. It is more about unscrupulous pornography businesses targeting children in the hopes of getting them addicted to the material at a young age.

With the latest ruling, Shurtleff said it's clear parents will have to be much more vigilant about keeping track of their children's Internet activities.

"I guess the message that parents should take from this is: Don't expect government to try and solve this through legislation," he said. "Our efforts have consistently been overturned. Parents need to take an active interest and it boils down to supervision."

The majority, led by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, said there may have been important technological advances in the five years since a federal judge blocked the law, known as the Child Online Protection Act.

Holding a new trial will allow discussion of what technology, if any, might allow adults to see and buy material that is legal for them while keeping that material out of the hands of children.

Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with Kennedy.