COPA Worse Than Censorware?

Slime-dogg writes: "Looks like the feds are trying to pass a law to ban posting of erotica on-line." The law, COPA, isn't really news. What's news is that the ACLU is arguing that censorware is "less restrictive" than simply criminalizing sexual content. Essentially they are telling the court, "You should not allow COPA because, instead of banning sex, the government could install censorware and that would be better." Legal arguments by definition must be practical, so I see where the ACLU is coming from, but many will interpret this as green-lighting government-mandated censorware.

Comments

Our view on sex is warped

[rodgerd]

For some reason (I blame the Puritans 8) the English speaking West has an utterly warped view of sex, and on keeping children away from sex (where "children" seems to include, eg, 21 year olds if you're the US vice-president's wife).

This leads to insane anomalies, such as a 16 year old being able to view graphic depictions of violence being perpetrated for yucks, while people having sex in even the most conservative context (loving relationship), never mind fun, is walled away behind felony statutes. Heck, in many parts of the English-speaking world, people can legally have sex before they can view it. Which is nuts.

Meanwhile, other parts of the world worry more about, eg, the productizing of childhood (eg, Sweden's restrictions on advertising to children), or promoting the notion that violence is a good and fun way to solve problems (Germany's restrictions on pro-violence games). You'll forgive me if I think those countries have their heads screwed on right - I'd rather 14 year olds get the message that sex is natural and enjoyable (in the right circumstances) than thinking that beating people up is neat.

Re:free speech

[ronfar]

Now the ACLU is in a position where they actually have to *defend* one of the industries (see the mattel articles in YRO) that they have very recently been trying to defend the people of this nation against[censorware]. What I don't get is why it either has to be censorware or censorship? IMO neither is acceptable under the first ammendment to the constitution.

Perhaps you are not aware of recent changes to the First Amendment enacted by the Supreme Court, see this article for details:

Second, five justices also agreed that a form of expression -- in this case, totally nude dancing -- may be banned outright because of the "secondary effects" it has in promoting crimes such as alcohol abuse and domestic violence in the surrounding neighborhood. Souter, however, asserted that government must offer some evidence that these secondary effects will flow from the expression and that its statute will alleviate them.--quote from "Kandyland decision a new First Amendment landmark," by Tony Mauro on Freedom Forum

Missing from the above quote is the fact that David Souter was the only one of the justices who believed that you should have to prove "secondary effects." Of the remaining justices:

1.Scalia and Thomas: Basically said that the government can ban whatever you want if it is supporting "public morals."

2.O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer: Basically said that as long as the government asserts negative secondary effects as an excuse, they can ban whatever they want.

3. Stevens and Ginsburg: Dissented, pointing out that this was basically the end of the First Amendment as we know it in the United States of America.

Essentially, the "secondary effects doctrine" of the Supreme Court currently is, "if someone thinks it might cause a crime, it can be banned for that secondary effect." Currently, the First Amendment has about as much teeth in it as the Second Amendment, years of packing the Supreme Court with far right conservatives has had it's desired effect, which was always to reduce the effectiveness of Constitutional arguments. (Conservatives have been upset by "activist courts" which basically used the Constitution to enact legislation, such as bussing and Roe v. Wade. So the goal of conservatives and the "strict constructionist" philosophy was to weaken the Supreme Court and give power back to the Congress.) If the CDA were proposed today, it might not just pass, it would probably also pass Constitutional muster with the current court.

I suspect that this is why the ACLU is trying to argue that "well, we have filters so we don't need to enact bans" because under the new Constitution, just the fact of the First Amendment no longer protects you from being censored. It's a brave new world.

I hope people will consider this in the next election.