Rattle quoted:
] ] "It is a little string of letters and numbers that acts
] ] as a superficial label," they argued in a brief.
] ] "Disablement of an ISP's customers' access to a
] ] particular URL for even an indefinite time does not
] ] implicate First Amendment rights."

yeah, that's foolish a lot.

in what way is a URL a "superficial label"?

Given that the content effectively ceases to exist without the label, it's not superficial.

Anyway, all of that is completely secondary to the bigger problem which is that censorship is pretty damn impossible to make work, expecially in any sort of automated way. And the even bigger problem than that which is the shifting of responsibility from, say, you, me or parents, onto businesses, by the government.

It's unfortunate how often this happens. Child pornography was already illegal, i don't see how this is going to make things better. Censorship at any level higher than the family unit is bound to fail miserably, and help no one.

RE: Wired News: Child Porn Law Debated in Court