Plagiarism on college campuses is nothing new. But in a new twist to the age-old problem, some companies are using the Internet to market ready-made term papers. Incensed over the wide availability of this cyberscholarship, educators are waging war against the high-tech term paper mills. Under a new Texas law backed by colleges, companies can be fined $500 for selling papers over the Internet. In another example, Boston University is suing eight on-line companies for fraud and racketeering.   Educators defend these efforts in the name of academic integrity. But focusing their fury on the source of the scholarship―instead of its fraudulent use by students―misses the point. They let college kids escape responsibility for plagiarism, a serious offense, while trying to police the amorphous world of on-line scholarship.   The Web sites offer term papers on a wide range of subjects, and posting and selling research on the Internet doesn't constitute fraud. Canned term papers are easy to obtain off line, too, through campus-　based entrepreneurs and mail-order companies that place classified ads in student publications. Even if educators could shutter every electronic term paper factory in the USA, they couldn't stop them from joining the 40% of Internet sites that are based outside the United States.   Prosecuting Internet-based term paper mills raises serious constitutional questions. Last year, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law designed to protect kids from cyberporn. There's no reason to think courts will be more tolerant of attempts to censure free speech to fend off cyberplagiarists.   The most sensible way to stop plagiarism is to target students looking for a shortcut. Whether a student cribs material from cyberspace or mail-order catalogue, professors say ready-made term papers are easy to spot. They stand out as off-point and superficial, particularly to professors who give original assignments and do their own grading. With or without the Internet, there will always be students looking for ways to beat the education system. By targeting the source of the faked research instead of the person passing it off, students are denied a lesson in the value of high standards - in ethics as much as in scholarship.                        ４段落２行目以降がわかりにくいので、説明します。   　　Prosecuting Internet-based term paper mills raises serious constitutional questions. Last year, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law designed to protect kids from cyberporn. There's no reason to think courts will be more tolerant of attempts to censure free speech to fend off cyberplagiarists.

昨年、最高裁がサイバーポルノから子供を守る連邦(全米)法を廃止(strike down)した。→　表現の自由の方がもっと大事という判断をしたことになります。

There's no reason to think （courts will be more tolerant of attempts to censure free speech to fend off cyberplagiarists. ）

（cyberplagiarist（ネットで学生にレポートを売る業者）を排除する目的で 表現の自由を検閲（規制）する試み に関して、裁判所が（サイバーポルノ事件より）もっと寛容＝この種の検閲を認める　）

と考える理由はない。

（　　）内を考える理由はない　というのは、（　　）内はおかしい、ということですよね。（　　）内のようにはならないということです。 　つまり、 「サイバーポルノから子供を守る」という ちゃんとした目的があっても、裁判所は、検閲はイカンと判断したのに、悪質さにおいてそれ以上の期末レポートの盗作について、「検閲オッケー」になるはずがない、ということです。