WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a law that was aimed at protecting kids from online smut is probably an unconstitutional limit on free speech.

SURVEY The Supreme Court said Tuesday that the Child Online Protection Act is probably unconstitutional. What do you think? Adults should have the right to access porn. Children should be protected Not sure Other Results | Disclaimer | E-Mail

PROTECTION Rate Them: Online Filters FILTERS Web Site: NetMop.com Web Site: Cybersitter.com Web Site: Tueagles.com Web Site: StBernard.com Web Site: CNonline.com

The court split 5-4 over the Child Online Protection Act, which was passed in 1998. At the time, it was signed by President Bill Clinton.

The majority of the court said in Ashcroft v. ACLU that a lower court was correct to block the law from taking effect, because it probably violates the First Amendment.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo said the court is opposing common sense measures designed to protect children.

The decision doesn't end the fight over the law, however. The justices sent the case back to a lower court, where the government will have a chance to prove that the law doesn't go too far. The measure included fines of up to $50,000 for putting sexually oriented material where minors could easily access it.

Critics of the law say that it could be used to prevent adults from seeing and buying material they have a right to reach.

The Supreme Court sent the law back to the court that blocked it. A new trial will discuss what technology, if any, might allow adults access to material that's legal for them, while keeping it away from children.

In the opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that it's possible that current filtering technology could make a law like COPA unnecessary.

Read Opinion In Ashcroft v. ACLU
Online Child Protection Act