Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules on Challenge to COPA
Publiux writes: "LawMeme is reporting today that the Supreme Court upheld portions of the Child Online Protection Act because using community standards to determine what could be harmful to minors was not overly broad and thus not unconstitutional. Before you stop spreading your 'sexually explicit material' online, a lower court still has to determine if the law is unconstitutional for other reasons." Snibor Eoj submits this link to coverage at Yahoo! as well. Other readers link to AP coverage running at NandoTimes and the decision itself (PDF).
This isn't about kiddie porn. It's about run-of-the-mill porn, featuring adults, which could possibly be VIEWED by children on the internet.
Supreme Court rules that using a law using 'community standards' does not mean its automatically unconstitutional.
That's it. They then sent the case back to the lower court to try unconstitutionality on other merits.
This was a very limited ruling, and the government is still barred from enforcing the law.
This isn't much of a news story...
-
So just to check: I can still post whatever pictures I like here in the UK, so long as they're legal under UK law?
What about if I holiday in America? Will I get kidnapped like Skylarov did?
It's a sad day when only companies with credit-card processing equipment are allowed the freedom of the press.
So the Supreme Court thinks that "free speech" means "free if the majority of the populace likes it or agrees with it" (community standards). Isn't the First Amendment sort of nullified by a reading like that? If you're not allowed to make a statement or produce an artwork (including photographs) that the general populace doesn't agree with, then your speech isn't really free. It's just allowed or banned under the will of the government, which is the sort of situation that the original constitutional amendments were meant to put a stop to.
It's interesting to see how poorly understood the Internet is to the justices. The terminology is the same as if they were using "local community standards" to determine if a strip club should be allowed. That works when you are talking about a place with physical presence, but are we now going to apply the "local community standards" of some enclave of rich religious puritans to every internet user? I'm a member of a church who's "community standards" would reject most PG-13 movies (and in fact has specially edited versions of popular movies made to prevent the members from fleeing to R rated movies and "corrupting" themselves).
Let's hope that subjecting those who did not agree to a strict "community standard" themselves to the harshest that can be found turns this around...
Sig under construction since 1998.
Because they are children and if you dont understand this then you have serious maturity issues that need to be addressed and I suggest you use the time you have devoted to /. posting to rectifing this situation.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Actually, you're wrong.
;)
The rights ARE presumed, and then Congress is forbidden from abridging them.
Reread the Constitution
The single largest problem with your argument is that the constitution itself * explicitly * states that rights are *not* granted but are presumed.
In fact, this is the single fundamental point at the center of all American law and politics and if you don't understand that you understand nothing of our legal society.
What's more, the constitution is document that not only reserves *all* rights to the people but exists almost entirely to define the *restrictions* on the action of the government, *not* the people!
KFG
Someone who doesn't *need* a cop just to tell him what to do.
KFG
Basicly the supreme court ruled against the ACLU's argument that the "community standards" were unconstitutional, but left the rest up to the lower coutrs to decide. This may bounce back to the supreme court at a later date, but for now it's been repremanded back to the federal circuit.
The injunction is still in place which means that the law cannot be enforced currently.
- H.R. 4239, which makes it a felony to distribute any kind of sexually explicit material to a user who does not register with a government-sanctioned age verification service (like AdultCheck).
- H.R. 4551, which outlaws the creation and distribution of "electronic burglary devices" such as system cracking scripts and port scanners.
- H.R. 4608, which taxes all sales of goods over the internet that originate overseas.
- H.R. 4277, which requires all ISPs to keep 6 months of records of all user activity and give law enforcement access to the records without a court order.
The list goes on. Naturally most of these will never become law, but statistically at least a few are likely to pass and make the internet that much more repressive. It's high time to vote Libertarian and try to preserve the few remaining liberties we actually have in this country.In particular, we know that there have been strategic efforts to prosecute purveyors of "adult" materials in the "least tolerant" communities.
Since it is technically impossible to know what community a web visitor is in (thanks to AOL and other proxy servers), the end result is simple: nobody can offer ANY "adult" materials to anyone in the world, unless those materials are acceptable under the community standards of the most conservative community in the United States.
The real goal, of course, is not to prosecute violations of this law -- it is to create a system that strongly deters creation or distribution of ANY adult content online. By imposing an impossible standard to prevent access by minors, the law effectively closes off access to everyone.
It would be interesting to see an analysis of the current minimum costs associated with starting an adult business, even ignoring the cost of legal advice and any costs associated with harassment by local law enforcement. I suspect the costs are quite high, especially for a firm producing original content. The bottom line, in my view, is that our government is imposing the moral views of a few to strongly discourage and often prevent access to adult materials wanted by the majority.
-- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
And decidedly a 13 year old today is far less mentally and emotionally mature than they were back then... simply because back then they had to grow up fast.
The simple fact is that today children are far less capable of dealing with the physical and emotional burdens of a sexual relationship and child-rearing, and kids shouldn't have to be. Let them be kids for crying out loud!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The COPA has nothing to do with child porn. It restricts *adult* material that *may* be viewed by a minor. In other words, " dirty pictures."
By applying " community standards" bikini pinups could be all that is needed to invoke prosecution under COPA.
It's the disturbing sort of law that makes it illegal to distribute the sort of material it's perfectly legal for the intended recipient to possess, even under the standards of the supposed "community."
KFG
Oh I see... But adults are Ok to sacrifice since they are worthless globs of matter. As opposed to the precious and angelic children, right?
Children are easily replaceable, mostly useless, and quit annoying. Not to mention completely selfish by default. Don't go preaching about how 'precious' children are. I'm against underage pornography, but not because I give a flying fuck about the kids specifically. I don't like to see anyone hurt, be they child or adult. I'm also against exploitave adult pornography where the subject is not fully willing to participate. There should be no lesser or greater amount of civil rights extended to children than adults.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
So how do we contribute to Judge Steven's election campaign, and get rid of the other 8?
Oh, wait, they're appointed. Rats. His point on how this means sites would have to cater to the least permissive denominator is darn insightful.
Clearly, in most cases there's going to be a lag between internet-saavy judges and reality, even moreso with politicians (as politicians cycle through quicker than high-level justices).
A.
You don't have to sacrifice them. Training them so that they know what to do once they get there is a more effective option, since it's something they can use their entire lives.
And decidedly a 13 year old today is far less mentally and emotionally mature than they were back then... simply because back then they had to grow up fast.
The simple fact is that today children are far less capable of dealing with the physical and emotional burdens of a sexual relationship and child-rearing, and kids shouldn't have to be. Let them be kids for crying out loud!
Of course, this sucks ass for the kids since they are maturing physically much faster than the were a hundred years ago. There are girls as young as 8 years old developing breasts and going through puberty. Part of the blame rests with the meat heavy, hormone rich diet they consume. So we're breeding generations of children that become interested in sex much earlier than they used to, but are being taught far less about sex than they once were. So maybe you SHOULD teach your 9 year old about sex, since she looks like a 15 year old, so all of the 17 year old guys are going to be hitting on her... Might be a good idea if she knows what they mean when they want to play "doctor"....
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Actually, the Constitution does not grant anyone any rights, nor was it ever intended to. The U.S. Constitution was written to limit the ability of the Government to infringe on your rights. The concept of your rights is not debatable, you have certain unalienable rights.
Therefore, this speech is colored by the other contents of the Constitution, including the possibility of limiting "Such Speach as may be Found Hurtful to the Citizens of the Nation." I think this falls into the "hurtful" category pretty clearly. I'm not going to argue against this. Our children are too precious to sacrifice them at the altar of free speech.
I'm not going to argue that exposing kids to hardcore pr0n isn't harmful... it is. However, I am going to argue that it's dangerous ground when we try to "insulate" kids from the realities of the world via legislation. Where do you draw the line of what is acceptable? Is non-sexual nudity OK?
I feel the real issue of contention is this: It's not the Government's business what sites my children view. It's *MY* business, and as a parent it becomes my job to filter what my kids see on the Net, on TV, in games, at the movies, etc.
It doesn't take a village to raise a child, or government, it takes parents who care.
You could not be more wrong. The Bill of Rights reiterates some of the rights you are born with. It does not give you those rights. Those rights can not be taken away. The Constitution did not even mention those rights origially. They were added after the fact because of great concern about government abuse (those guys were pretty damn smart, in my opinion, and correctly guessed the future).
Even if Congress tried to abolish the Constitution, we would still have those rights. We would also have a civil war.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Actually it's COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, not COPA.
Clearly, you have no idea what "average age" means. sheesh.
Average age was 30 because of a high infant mortality rate! if you calculate average age based from the age of five, are average age has only increase 4-5 years!
a 13 year old has the same "mental capacity" now as they had 5000 years ago!
yes, I know i'm exclaiming a lot! it my attempt to get people to buy a clue!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
FYI, COPA specifies "...in interstate or foreign commerce", so yes, I think you'd still potentially be held liable if the law is upheld in the end.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Irregardless what the gov't decides what is best for their peasants, we're staying free and open until our servers are smashed to bits by military personnel. We'll move offshore if need be. Long live free speech. Long live free porn.
Thats a great post. I should be allowed to wnjoy whatever I want as long as Im not hurting anyone else or their right to do the same. I like porn, I watch porn, I spank to porn, I support the porn industry and hell, maybe someday I can actually be in a porn movie. The fact is...I just cant stand some moral majority telling me what to do. Like I said, if theres no harm, then theres no foul.
So we can talk freely only with people whose identities we can prove we have verified. And anything I might suggest (involving a Coke can and a Justice) here could land me and/or the proprietors in jail because some kid might read this in a jurisdiction where it's only considered proper to use Pepsi, and perhaps even one so backwards that only bottles are acceptible.
BTW, don't we now know that the great trove of old paintings of eroticized, crucified saints and Jesus lead directly to sexual abuse of children by priests? Should these images, too dangerous even for priests, be allowed before children in any context?
This Court should be impeached for its conduct in the last election. Then we need a tolerable president to appoint a new one.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
jurors will not consider the community standards of any particular geographic area, but rather will be "instructed to consider the standards of the adult community as a whole, without geographic specification."
Yeah, that will work. When exactly is the entire adult community getting together to write up these standards? I know I haven't gotten my invitation yet. If this law survives long enough to be enforced (which it probably won't, due to the countless other possible challenges), the jurors on these trials are going to have lots of fun. "Ok, heads it is harmful to kids, tails it isn't..."
Of course, the courts have a long history of upholding community standards requirements in cases where there is no specific community to use as a standard, so this shouldn't be surprising. The major flaw in all of this, regardless of community, is that what is considered to be harmful to children and what actually is harmful to children aren't usually the same, and this varies from child to child.
Too bad we can't just make parents responsible for raising their kids... Oh, right, I forgot that porn sites automatically pop up whenever a parent's back is turned, completely unrequested by the kid at the computer. And porn sites hypnotize kids and force them to look at explicit material whether they want to or not, permanently corrupting them no matter what the parents do.
I pondered responding to the parent as one of those, "Don't feed the trolls," moments, but I decided to anyway.
/. audience decry the injustice of having to live under restriction. THey argue that they are capable of anything, at 14, 15, 16, whatever, that a reasonable adult is capable of. Quite frankly, they are wrong.
/. and the trolls. How many trolls are children? Or when was the last time a group of children presented a worthwhile arguement or even used their freedom of speech in a constructive way? I will lend my $.02 and say that for every 1 that does there are hundreds who do not.
I believe that the current system is absolutely correct. Children should not have the rights of an adult. I would further like to see these rights not come into effect until a person reaches the age of 21.
Why?
I've seen the younger members of the
Adulthood, and Citizenship, bestow upon the bearer a burden of responsibility. For an example I'll choose the 2nd Ammendment (just to do my part in pissing some people off). The second ammendment in its implications bestows upon the recipient (or rather prohibits the government from limiting, but that's another discussion), a responsibility of arms. To both protect our nation as well as being a last line of defense against tyranny. Firmly intrenched in that concept is the act of taking a life using that weapon.
Would I want another human being, not fully mentally developed and unable to fully grasp the implications of the actions, to be in control of that weapon. No, it is a responsibility they do not need.
Lets move back to the topic at hand and mention the first ammendment. How many youths have learned temperence of the tongue? For evidence I submit
So to conclude my little rant and probably my troll, I'm guessing by your attitude that you, the parent (ironic eh?), is a child and is bitter over your current status in society. Get over it. It's not worth worrying about and by the time you have the ability to effect change, it will no longer be relevent to you and you will probably change your mind about the entire topic and see my point of view.
"Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
Your definition of censorship is quite bizarre. Censorship is about the regulation of information, not actions. Are laws against child pornography the imposition of moral values on others? Absolutely! If you don't like those morals, then I invite you to move to a country where child pornography is not considered immoral.
In the vast majority of nations, the distribution of child pornography is equally immoral, and receives equally strict condemnation. That's where the censorship comes in. Child pornography encompasses the creation of the work, possession of the work and distribution of the work. Pretending that its creation should be illegal but its distribution or ownship should not is to misdefine the crime. It's akin to saying theft should be illegal but the fencing of stolen goods should not be.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Believe it or not, constitutional rights are not extended to all U.S. citizens. For example, children in juvenile court do not have a right to a jury trial (McKeever v Pennsylvania.)
Until a child is an adult, parents are responsible for what the children are allowed to do or not do. In the absense of parental discipline, society has an established parental role (parens patriae.) Just as liquor stores can be barred from selling to minors, porn sites can be barred from distributing to minors.
If you produce porn, this Act doesn't bar you from distributing it. The Act simply requires that you take reasonable steps to ensure that minors are not in your audience while you exersize your free speech. You're mostly free to say what you want to other citizens; however, since children are not citizens, parents and society can decide for them as to whose speech they can listen to.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Do you require payment via credit cards?
Do you do age verification on those CCs? Or, if you don't require just CCs, do you age-check other methods?
If so, and those are good-faith efforts (no suggestions to steal parents' cards, for instance...) you're in the clear, it would seem.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Before I get flamed to a complete toasty crisp, allow me to briefly clarify my position. The intent of my post was to debate the bill as a whole, not necessarily the specific article. Furthermore, I feel that it is fruitless to debate that anti-censorship must be a conviction which is all-encompassing. Child-porn is a crime that preys on those hapless to defend themselves. It is not censorship in this case, but protection. My statement "I am anti-censorship and anti-child-porn" is not a contradiction, rather it is a distinguishment between the fundamental right of free expression and the protection of innocents.
For those of you flaming me mercilessly with regards to my apparent disregard for subject matter pertaining precisely to the submitted article, get over it. The article (yes I did read it--thank you) was fairly dull. I am not being "offtopic" by remarking on the bill itself (COPA), specifically because my point was that the judges are pretty much stuck between a rock and a hard place. Anyhow, thanks to you guys for making me write a virtual disclaimer for my opinion, I find nothing more disgusting.
For the sake of argument however, I will remark briefly on the submitted paper now for continued clarification: It is silly. The constitution is designed not to protect the majority's viewpoint, rather it is designed precisely for the opposite position! You cannot have a sheep and four wolves vote on what is for dinner...
Thanks for the replies, and I invite more...
-----rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
Huh? I'm 22, I'm married. I hate children. I'm not a proponent of giving children all of the general rights of adulthood, I explicitly stated CIVIL rights.
Oh, and as for Or when was the last time a group of children presented a worthwhile arguement or even used their freedom of speech in a constructive way? I will lend my $.02 and say that for every 1 that does there are hundreds who do not.
How many ADULTS can present a worthwhile argument for their right to free speach? Far too few.
But just because someone is incapable of enumerating their rights effectively does not mean those rights do not apply to them.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Parents/communities can then block out .sex access.
I'd also go one step further and make it illegal for sending unsolicited mail that includes sexual/adult references/images/links. I can't believe that it's legal for these sex spammers to send links like this to email accounts that might be used by children.
I find the actual text of the decision to be suprisingly readable. It's not just a bunch of legal obscuritanism, such as I've gotten used to out of lawyers by reading too many EULAs.
I find that the justices do understand the technology pretty well. They understand the difference between web and email. They understand that you can't determine geography on the Internet.
The key to the decision seems to be that they feel that the material covers a narrow enough range of stuff that the definition of "community" is not problematic. Art, for example, would be considered to have "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors" and is therefore OK, no matter what it depicts. The CDA lacked this clause, and that's why they struck it down.
In a sense, they want to define a "national community" where the really obscene stuff can be restricted. Obscenity has long been considered to be unprotected speech, and even if they rule against COPA it won't change that. It's just that the Web for the first time gives us the opportunity to be obscene on a national scale.
Of course, now you just get off into a definition of "art". Like most law, despite pages and pages of text, at the root it seems to be up to a judgment call by a judge and/or jury as to what is acceptable. So it may well still be considered overbroad, and that is the real news today: this one attack on the law is invalid, but there are plenty of others.
If you object to the decision, I highly recommend Justice Stevens' dissent, at the tail end. He finds the explanations I gave above unconvincing, as do I.
Well, IMHO:
If it is digital,it cannot be evil or bad, and should under no circumstance be regulated. Period.
Information, eg bits, cannot be "Good" or "bad", only "accurate" or "inaccurate". All the data that exists or has ever existed is MINE, and belongs to all members of H.Sap.
Call it the ultimate anti-censorship position, I don't care; Information is, to me, sacred, good and should NEVER be restricted. There is an arguable need for personal confidentiality (e.g. credit card numbers), but I'd rather be in a all cash world if the choice came down to freedom (yes, that INCLUDES the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater- go and see for YOURSELF if there really is a fire; it was a stupid case a ruling if you look at the facts).
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Conclusively define 'Child Porn' by giving me an age beyond which someone is no longer considered a Child.
The plain fact of the matter is that in many places around the world the age of consent ranges from 12 years old up to 18 years old. So is a 14 year old considered Child porn? Where? By who? Should the creator be judged by the standards of every community which is capable of viewing the material or should they be held accountable to the standards of the community which they actually reside in? Your assertion is vague and unfounded. Go away...
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
You also have to take into effect that if you make it hard to get guns, that doesn't mean violent crime, including murder, will go away. You will however reduce murders involving guns. You also make it harder for people to defend themselves. In urban areas, the police may have decent response time, and they may be able to do a decent job of protecting you. In rural areas, the police aren't going to show up until after the issue is resolved. If you're attacked, you're on your own.
Statements like this one are ridiculas trolls.
If you support the fascist conservatives who oppose gun control, these deaths are on your head.
Those deaths are on the heads of the people who killed them. Simply taking away all the guns doesn't prevent violent crime. Murder existed long before guns were invented. A gun is a tool that can be used to assualt or defend. It's the person who uses it that's to blame for how it's used, not the gun.
I would have laughed at Ashcroft having the statue of a "topless" woman representing justice covered up, were it not for the fact that nobody has ever covered her up before. That means that your Secretary of Justice is the most conservative Secretary of Justice since the statue was erected (30s?). At least when it comes to nudity.
Or maybe he was uncomfortable promiting his shady agenda under her direct, righteous innocence.
Stop the brainwash
So who decides what's pornographic? Do bikini shots count? How about Madonna's "sex" book; should amazon not be allowed to sell that except from a different site, Amazon.Sex?
.kids domain, and make it illegal to host pornography there? There's still the question of what constitutes pornography, but by intentionally registering and operating in the .kids domain, and company or individual could be said to be buying into the restrictions on that domain.
Suggesting that the entire internet should be legislated to only kid-friendly content is stupid and reckless.
Rather than limit what everyone else can do "to protect the children," why not go with the
I'm with you on the spam, though, but I'd say just make unsolicited email in general illegal. While porn content may be more offensive or inappropriate for some people or children, the root problem is not the content but the delivery method; fix that, and the content problem goes away.
Cheers
-b
Someone mod this guy troll. His sig's offensive and a spoiler.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
The First Amendment does not guarantee you a forum.
The internet is not a government-proved forum though. What the First ammendment does provide is protection of my right to speak with my neighbor freely, be it vocally, or through a computer network.
The government cannot regulate the internet because it is part of the private sector, not the public sector. At least, if our democracy didn't allow for arbitrary laws to be created...
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
So I disagree. Child-porn laws are necessary. Whether or not they are prefect according to cultural or ethnic borders is irrelevant. Some people enjoy stealing, but it is still against the law regardless of your cultural viewpoint. I fail to sympathize with producers of child-porn strictly due to unfair regulation. It's not as if they aren't aware that many people find the idea offensive...
----------rhad
Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
By utilizing agreements on appropriate content within the domain agreements, new TLDs could create a child and family safe area on the Internet leaving great swaths of area appropriate for adults.
.sex isn't a solution as no one operating from a foriegn area can be forced to segregate themselves there.
US or any country's laws can not reach all Internet providers, so the agreement has to be made at the point of registering the domain.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I'm not saying Child Porn laws aren't necessary, I'm saying you can't just say 'Child porn is illegal' and let it go at that. And you can't enforce US laws against people in other countries who aren't breaking any of their countries laws. The US DOES NOT rule the world, they do not make laws for every country on the planet and they should stop trying.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Please excuse the lateness of this post.
The internet is not a clean, sterile little playground on which your child can frolic unsupervised at the expense of everyone else. Yes, it does mean that your child needs supervision. There is almost undoubtedly a lab attendant in your child's computer lab, and there are library employees. So no, you do not need to hold your child's hand in the library or computer lab unless you absolutely trust no one.
If my parents hadn't punished me for anything growing up, I would have grown up to be a big jerk with no values. You could say the same about any kid. The government stepping in and eliminating a potential danger to your kid won't accomplish anything if you can't teach your kid right from wrong in the first place. Bad influences are a fact of life that we all have to learn to live with.
No, that's the COPPA. (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act). Very easy to get them confused.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Actually, the mentally incompetent are prohibited from possessing firearms. I'm fairly sure that morons would fall into that group. Convicted felons and those who are dishonorably discharged from military service (the two are roughly equivalent) are also excluded. Outside of those groups, there is no moral or legal basis to prohibit possession or use of a gun.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
You could make the same argument (public vs private sector) about telephones, yet those are regulated.
Hold on there though. Telephone _companies_ are regulated. What is discussed and exchanged on the telephone is not regulated. I can say whatever I wish over the phone.
Companies are not people, and do not have rights (yeah 14th ammendment...). I am free to install a small telephone system within my neighborhood without being regulated in any way by the government.
On the other hand, I am not free to install a small LAN within my neighborhood and be free of COPA or any other of that nonsense.
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
Parents/communities can then block out .sex access.
.sex segregation would only be used to keep minor children away from pornography, it would probably work. The problem will be when an employer, university, or isp decides to monitor or block .sex addresses--people will (reasonably) create gateways, etc. to get around these restrictions, and kids will be able to use them, too.
If we could guarantee that the
It's a nice idea, but really not workable; as long as people try to limit adults' access to content innappropriate for children, it will be impossible to effectively limit children's access.
--
Benjamin Coates
Eh? I commend the Declaration of Independence to your attention. Government, in the view of the founders, does not grant rights; you have rights by virtue of being human. Governments are established to protect those rights that you already have.
OK, maybe not directly, but when a highly conservative Court rules that outright blockades of abortion and reproductive rights clinics are protected free speech, I'd consider them pretty closely intertwined.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)