http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20040630-00000002-imp-sci
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-218.pdf
この前の児童ポルノ防止法（CPPA：Child Pornography Prevention Act）の判決も、評釈出てません。
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-218. Argued March 2, 2004-Decided June 29, 2004
To protect minors from exposure to sexually explicit materials on the Internet, Congress enacted the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), 47 U. S. C. §231, which, among other things, imposes a $50,000 fine and 6 months in prison for the knowing posting, for “commercial pur-poses,” of World Wide Web content that is “harmful to minors,” but provides an affirmative defense to commercial Web speakers who re-strict access to prohibited materials by “requiring use of a credit card” or “any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology,” §231(c)(1). COPA was enacted in response to Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, in which this Court held that the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Congress’ first at-tempt to make the Internet safe for minors by criminalizing certain Internet speech, was unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and because less restrictive alternatives were available. Respondents, Web speakers and others concerned with protecting the freedom of speech, filed suit for a preliminary injunction against COPA’s enforcement. After con-sidering testimony presented by both respondents and the Government, the District Court granted the preliminary injunction, conclud-ing that respondents were likely to prevail on their argument that there were less restrictive alternatives to COPA, particularly blocking or filtering technology. The Third Circuit affirmed on different grounds, but this Court reversed, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564. On remand, the Third Circuit again affirmed, concluding, inter alia, that COPA was not the least restrictive means available for the Government to serve the interest of preventing mi-nors from using the Internet to gain access to harmful materials.
