This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2006, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Eight years after Congress tried to criminalize material deemed ''harmful to children,'' free speech advocates and Web site publishers took their challenge of the law to trial Monday.
Salon.com, Nerve.com and other plaintiffs backed by the American Civil Liberties Union are suing over the 1998 Child Online Protection Act. They believe the law could restrict legitimate material they publish online - exposing them to fines or even jail time.
The Justice Department argues that it is easier to stop online pornography at the source than to keep children from viewing it.
The law, signed by then-President Clinton, requires adults to use some sort of access code, or perhaps a credit card number, to view material that may be considered ''harmful to children.'' It would impose a $50,000 fine and six-month prison term on commercial Web site operators that publish such content, which is to be defined by ''contemporary community standards.''
It has yet to be enforced, however.
The U.S. Supreme Court has twice granted preliminary injunctions, including one in June 2004 in which it ruled 5-4 that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail.
The ACLU argues that filters are a more effective way of policing the Internet. It notes that the law would not regulate any material posted overseas.