Supreme Court keeps Net porn law on ice.
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 06-29-2004 - 12:23pm |
Several times I've been directed to porn sites unintentionaly. Only yesterday I was looking-up the definition of a word & was taken to a site, which was totally unconnected to my search. It's was quite graphic & totally unsuitable for children. BTW it was a dictionary site.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5251475.html
A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday barred prosecutors from filing criminal cases under a federal law designed to restrict Internet pornography, concluding that enforcement could violate Americans' free-speech rights.
The 5-4 ruling upheld an appeals court injunction preventing the Justice Department from enforcing the Child Online Protection Act, or COPA, until a full trial takes place. COPA restricts sexually explicit material deemed "harmful to minors" that appears on commercial Web sites, and includes civil and criminal penalties.
Tuesday's decision effectively forwards COPA back to a Philadelphia court for additional proceedings, including a full trial.
Congress enacted the law in 1998 in response to pressure from antiporn groups, but it was instantly challenged in court by the American Civil Liberties Union and has never been invoked in prosecutions.
The plurality opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, suggested that a trial may show that filtering software was a more-effective way of preventing children from seeing inappropriate material than relying on criminal laws that can't reach overseas. A "filter can prevent minors from seeing all pornography, not just pornography posted to the Web from America," Kennedy wrote.
"Filtering software, of course, is not a perfect solution to the problem of children gaining access to harmful-to-minors materials," Kennedy wrote. "It may block some materials that are not harmful to minors and fail to catch some that are."
Still, he said that the Justice Department, which is defending the law, has failed so far to prove that filters are that flawed as an alternative.
The lack of government controls on Internet pornography has permitted the adult industry to blossom on the Web. A report from Reuters Business Insight in February 2003 calculated that sex-related business represented two-thirds of all revenue generated by online content in 2001 and that it had ballooned to a $2.5 billion industry since then.
In an unusual set of legal proceedings, COPA has been bouncing around between the lower courts and the Supreme Court like a hyperactive ping-pong ball. A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down the law in February 1999, and the 3rd Circuit of Appeals followed suit. But the Supreme Court said in May 2002 that it wanted more analysis from the appeals court, which looked at the law again and promptly said for the second time that it violated the First Amendment.
A dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer said that COPA "imposes a burden on protected speech that is no more than modest" and should be upheld as constitutional.
COPA "does not censor the material it covers," Breyer wrote. "Rather, it requires providers of the 'harmful to minors' material to restrict minors' access to it by verifying age. They can do so by inserting screens that verify age using a credit card, adult personal identification number, or other similar technology. In this way, the act requires creation of an Internet screen that minors, but not adults, will find difficult to bypass."
COPA makes it a crime to publish "any communication for commercial purposes that includes sexual material that is harmful to minors, without restricting access to such material by minors."
"Harmful to minors" material is defined as lacking "scientific, literary, artistic or political value" and that is offensive to local "community standards." The maximum penalty is a $50,000 fine, six months in prison, and additional civil fees.
If COPA is eventually upheld as constitutional, many adult Webmasters could be imperiled unless they redesign their sites. "Teaser" images may disappear, since COPA says Webmasters who employ measures such as credit card verification or require an "adult access code" can't be prosecuted, as these mechanisms would typically keep out minors.
COPA represents Congress' second attempt to restrict sexually explicit material on the Internet. The Supreme Court in 1997 rejected the Communications Decency Act, which covered "indecent" or "patently offensive" material, as unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs in the COPA case include the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Salon.com, ObGyn.net, Philadelphia Gay News and the Internet Content Coalition. CNET Networks, publisher of News.com, was a member of the now-defunct Internet Content Coalition.


Pages
yes, it is a dichotomy, what to do, how to protect children without attacking freedom of speech? I guess parents have to remain vigilant and computer savvy and keep up with the software that helps eliminate or minimize the problem. I know we always kept our family computer in a central location so that we could keep a check on what was happening on the computer.
I remember a quite a few years ago how awful some of these unwanted links were, they would suddenly pop up and wham, mega boobs, bums etc and you couldn't close the darned window because it would keep popping up,and we would have to shut down the computer and restart. thank goodness for the filter programmes and blocks we could put on, not quite as bad now, but bad enough still.
>"My daughters screen name is set with the highest leval controls. If there's something she needs and can't access she can come to me."<
That sounds an ideal solution!
I wonder if it filters out an innocuous search, such as my dictionary 'surprise' the other day. In another thread, a discussion about
I wonder if it filters out an innocuous search, such as my dictionary 'surprise' the other day.
Yes, it does.
First off, I believe it is the parents’ responsibility to monitor their children’s Internet access. We have even just removed the modem connection when we are not home. Place the computer in a central location etc.
I also believe there are parents out there that just do not care. I'd like to see the government put a high priority on protecting our children. Not that free speech is not important and a huge issue. I just hate to see these young kids getting into an Internet chat room and getting into situations they are not mature enough to handle. Not just for my children but any child who could be vulnerable to predators.
This is just an idea but would giving certain types of internet material a different . from .com, .org, .edu, .gov be infringing on free speech?
Also I would love some recommendations on parental software controls.
G
>"This is just an idea but would giving certain types of internet material a different . from .com, .org, .edu, .gov be infringing on free speech? "<
That's a great idea! They could use .sex or .XXX, just a thought. :)
>"I just hate to see these young kids getting into an Internet chat room and getting into situations they are not mature enough to handle."<
I agree 100%. Teen have ways of skirting around their parents wishes. Often they're more computer savy than their parents.
>"Also I would love some recommendations on parental software controls. "<
I have no recommendations, no children at home. I'm sure someone can help! Check back.
>"I remember hearing a few years back that the porn industry was proposing a separate 'web' that you'd have to be an adult to access...but I haven't heard anything since."<
That sounds familier.
In my faves I have a folder just for dog rescue sites. I clicked on one I hadn't been to in awhile & that was a another 'fun' site. This happenend a few months ago. I'm not a prude by any stretch but it annoys me when I'm expecting something & get
G
This does sound like a workable solution, but how would it be implemented?
C
Pages