You there! HANDS OFF!! Cellphone driving ban approved

Ontario motorists will likely have until fall before it becomes illegal to use hand-held cellphones and other electronic devices like BlackBerrys and global positioning systems while at the wheel.

The Legislature unanimously passed the government's law against "distracted driving" yesterday but it will take several months before associated regulations are drawn up and a public education campaign launched, said Transportation Minister Jim Bradley.

Fines will be up to $500, which drivers can avoid by using a cellphone headset and voice dialing.

While some cab companies, courier and trucking firms want exemptions from the law as regulations are being written, Bradley said they won't be granted easily. "We would be extremely reluctant as a government to grant any exemptions unless a very compelling case could be made. Safety for the driving public ... will be paramount."

The government is looking at exemptions for communications devices for dispatching, tracking and monitoring commercial drivers.

Emergency services vehicles are also exempt from the prohibition on talking, texting and emailing using hand-held devices. As well, calls by motorists to 911 are exempt.

Progressive Conservative leadership candidate Christine Elliott said businesses will have to change their equipment so drivers can be hands-free of electronic devices.

"Anything that can reduce accidents on our roadways is going to be good," she said.

Bradley said the new law will help police crack down on unsafe practices like texting while at the wheel because officers are now reluctant to use careless driving laws, which carry more "significant" penalties of $1,000 fines and six demerit points, or dangerous driving laws, with a maximum $2,000 fine and up to five years in jail.

It will also be illegal for drivers to use hand-held entertainment devices but using an MP3 player plugged into a vehicle's sound system is okay. GPS units are acceptable if mounted on the dashboard.

Justices refuse to reconsider law restricting Internet porn

The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked further consideration of a federal law designed to keep sexual material from underage users of the Web.

The justices without comment Wednesday, rejected an appeal from the federal government to reinstate the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), passed by Congress in 1998. The high court and subsequent federal courts said the law -- which has never taken effect -- had serious free speech problems.

The Bush administration was a strong supporter of the law and the Justice Department led the fight in court to revive it.

The justices issued their ruling a day after all nine were on hand for the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor also attended the ceremony.

The case tested the free speech rights of adults against the power of Congress to control Internet commerce. The Supreme Court twice ruled against COPA, arguing that it represented government censorship rather than lawful regulation of adult-themed pornography businesses. The law would have prevented private businesses from creating and distributing "harmful" content that minors could access on the Internet.

Free speech advocates said adults would be barred access to otherwise legal material and that parental-control devices and various filtering technology are less intrusive ways to protect children.

The high court in 2004 upheld a preliminary injunction against the law and sent the case back to lower courts for consideration of the arguments. In their opinion at the time, the 5-4 majority concluded COPA "likely violates the First Amendment."

"The government has not shown that the less restrictive alternatives proposed ... should be disregarded," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 2004 decision. "Those alternatives, indeed, may be more effective" than the law passed by Congress. "Filters are less restrictive" he said, and thus pose less risk of muzzling free speech. "They impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source."

He added, "There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech if the law takes effect."

In reconsidering the law, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, again ruled the law unconstitutional.