Judge Rejects Law Aimed at Internet Porn

The judge examined in detail the effectiveness of filtering technology, noting that a variety of products exist that allow parents to customize blocking patterns to ensure that each child sees only the content the parent wants that child to see. Reed said that filters were widely available and often offered free by service providers. He noted that even the government's own expert witness concluded that software filters are effective, the vast majority blocking at least 95 percent of sexually explicit Web pages.

Reed criticized the law as overly broad and vague. He found that setting up credit card or payment systems as a way to keep minors out would impose a financial burden on site owners, and that requiring users to go through an age verification process would lead to a "distinct loss of personal privacy."

While agreeing with Reed that filtering software is effective in blocking access to questionable Web sites, Aaron Kenny, co-founder and chief technology officer of SafeBrowse, which makes a filter called Safe Eyes, said it is difficult for the government to keep up with technology. "It's not in the cutting edge of where the Internet is," he said.

He noted that Instant Messaging services, for instance, now include voice communications, webcam video conferencing and IM file sharing. "The capabilities to intercept video and those sort of things is a technology that really hasn't come around yet," Kenny said. "In the end, it always comes down to the parent to protect their children."

Reed's ruling, said John Morris, staff counsel with the Center for Democracy & Technology, endorses the idea that the best safeguard is "a combination of educating kids, parental supervision and the use of filtering technology."

"I'm stoked," said plaintiff Aaron Peckham, 26, a Silicon Valley software engineer who founded the Web site UrbanDictionary.com. "I would have been scared if a law like that had been in place."

Staff researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this report.