Parents supremely concerned

Jeff Benson

Mothers are concerned with Tuesday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision not

to penalize websites that make pornography available to children. But

it’s the sites’ persistence in their online marketing that gets them

really steamed.

“I don’t receive pornography through the U.S. mail, so I don’t

want it through our e-mail,” said Jill Money, PTA president at Corona

del Mar High School. “It’s an uninvited intruder.”

A 5 to 4 Supreme Court vote blocked Congress’ latest attempt

Tuesday to get a law passed that would’ve imposed a $50,000 daily

penalty on commercial Internet sites that refuse to steer their

sexual material toward an older audience.

In 1999, the district court blocked enforcement of the Child

Online Protection Act, citing an unsubstantiated need. The onus was

instead put on parents to limit their children’s exposure to the

sexually explicit online material. More than five years later, that’s

still the case.

Newport-Mesa parents said they’d like a balance of parental

supervision and government intervention when dealing with their

children’s exposure to sensitive material.

“I respect the free speech element of the Supreme Court decision,

but it’s sad that we can’t do more to protect our children,” Money

said.

Money, who has children ages 19, 16 and 12, said she keeps the

family computer in a place where she can personally supervise what

her kids are doing but still gets frustrated whenever any of them

receive spam e-mail soliciting lewd material.

Katherine Mielke, Newport Beach Public Library’s marketing

specialist who has a 19 and 16-year-old, said her family has

experienced problems with filtering inappropriate material sent their

way for years.

“These things keep coming and keep multiplying,” Mielke said.

“They try to get you to view pornography, even though you don’t want

it. It really makes it difficult for a parent, even one who’s

vigilant.”

Money and Mielke both said it’s difficult for their children to

access necessary websites for school-related projects because the

filters and firewalls on their computers also restrict some

information.

“What bothers me about it is that these companies will find a way

to get it to the kids,” Newport Heights PTA President Terry Torres

said. “They’ll find a niche in the market to get it to them. That’s

what the Supreme Court doesn’t take into consideration, and that’s

what bothers me. There’s no form for companies to properly market.”

Costa Mesa resident Hydee Beth’s children, who are 9, 7, 4 and 1,

aren’t yet at spammers’ target age. But she, too, has trouble

navigating the Web with her kids due to her computer’s Internet

blockers, effective but “inconvenient” tools designed to keep out

violent, obscene and sexually explicit material.

“There are certain sites [my children] try to go to but they’re

blocked through [America Online],” she said. “For my son, there are

some things I think would be OK for him to see, but I have to use my

screen name. If I’m not there to put him through, he can’t get

through.”

Most of the parents also hope a Supreme Court ruling to further

restrict access will be delivered in the near future.

Supreme Court justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,

David Souter, John Paul Stevens and Clarence Thomas voted against the

law, favoring filters and allowing parents to decide whether to block

out questionable material.

Kennedy said he felt the government most likely undermined the

abilities parents would have to filter out explicit material stemming

from overseas Web companies, which aren’t regulated by the same

domestic Internet bylaws.

“Filtering software, of course, is not a perfect solution to the

problem of children gaining access to harmful-to-minors materials,”

Kennedy said. “It may block some materials that are not harmful to

minors and fail to catch some that are.

“Whatever the deficiencies of filters, however, the government

failed to introduce specific evidence proving that existing

technologies are less effective than the restrictions in [the Child

Online Protection Act].”

* JEFF BENSON is the news assistant and may be reached at (949)

574-4298 or by e-mail at jeff.benson@latimes.com.