Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Rejects Child Online Protection Act, Again
mabesty writes "From The Washington Post: A panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that COPA restricts free speech by barring Web page operators from posting information inappropriate for minors unless they limit the site to adults. The ruling upholds an injunction blocking the government from enforcing the law." We last covered COPA when the Supreme Court handled it last year.
I'm heading to the elementary school library to do some research!
I was afraid they might set up some sort of recreational club under this law, a COPA-cabana if you will.
You are not the customer.
Finally, a decision. Now will parents stop pushing legislation and start monitoring their children's online activities? No, they'll just push another bill. But at least we have a precedent, again... Wait, what was the point of a precedent? Apparently, parents haven't caught on yet.
+ G to tha Izzo, A to tha Tizee, Talking Giz-oat, Ya'll Bettah Feel Me... +
I know your only logged in so the comment are automatically displayed with your prefered settings. Don't let the nasty coward upset you. There, there.
Karma: Bad due to google bombing - Robert Watkins woz 'ere.
Why not inforce a rule asking people providing adult material to have a meta tag specifying this exactly, or send it some way or another, so that censorship programs can read this and disallow it for children, I think a kid wanting to see adult material will know his way through clicking buttons telling he is over 18 years old.
Khalid
"What you 'seek' is what you get!"
Some people will define "protecting" children by different means. The Christian Right around here would deny children access to everything they don't agree with, cinluding evolutionary textbooks since they might "corrupt" their kids. Other people will take their 7-year-olds to go see Robocop or the Rocky Horror Picture Show for the hell of it. Trying to protect children requires good parenting first and foremost, not just overly protective laws. Public schools are trickiest of all since so many ready-to-litigate families have different concerns for their kids. I think the easiest solution would be to either have all of the computers monitored by a faculty member. Maybe they could also tell the kids well in advance that their activities will be monitored with justification neccessary for visiting sites deemed "questionable". Granted, that system could be abused and not all kids need protection, but for Johnny trying to e-mail the president and instead visiting a .com instead of a .gov (whitehouse.com is a notorious porn site), some measure of protection should be in place.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
How about this one.
Whenever congress (or state legislatures) pass a law that is later found to be unconstitutional, public funds must be used to reimburse all legal costs that were incurred in bringing the suit and having the unconstitutional law found to be unconstitutional.
Why should private or industry money have to be used to combat ridiculous laws that legislators can freely pass at a whim? Let's make them at least have to budget the cost of overturning their unconstitutional laws.
Example. Some hypothetical attorney general, let's call him "Asscruft", proposes to congress, and congress later passes, and the president signs a bill making it illegal to think bad thoughts under penalty of 5 years of $500,000.
Everyone would be screaming to have this overturned. Lots of private money would have to be used to get this nonsense overturned. Why should the citizenry be forced to overturn bad laws that they didn't want but that their "representatives" thought would be good for them, or that corporate interests bought and paid for?
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
It's bad enough I buy booze for underage kids, I wouldn't want to be buying them pr0n too!
Trolling is a art,
Oh wait they did, and decided that those little bastards shouldn't interfere with my being an adult and doing adult things.
,you parent them, otherwise move along and don't breed.
Here is the deal. You want kids?
This sounds trollish but i really hate building a society to the lowest common denominator.
I'm sick of laws trying to be passed to make up for bad parenting. It is not the government's responsibility to raise your children, people.
One reason that I would think twice about letting my kids (if I had them) use the net would be for the amount of accessible porn, and the like that is so freely, and easily available. Over a certain age (15 maybe, maybe more) then anything goes, but, as it stands, I can click on a page within a presumably benign google search, and be presented with something that isn't. Allowing sites to show 'information inappropriate for minors' to minors is like selling kids top shelf mags, or allowing them in to the movies see uk cert 18 movies.
I'm completely against censorship to those of us who have arrived at adulthood, but saying that kids should be allowed to view adult material because of 'free speech' is wrong.
T.
I'm sure we're going to hear again from the gang that just wants to "protect the children." And we're going to hear from the people who want parents to surf the Net with their children, thus combatting the problem from another approach.
Might I suggest a different approach?
Children are going to be exposed to bad things. They always have. At home I have a book titled "Pioneer Women." It's about the roles of women in settling the western United States. One photograph is particularly memorable. It's of a small child looking at the body of man who's just been killed in a gun fight. I suspect that's more traumatic than seeing a bit of pr0n on the Internet.
When I was a child, I was exposed to information about the Holocaust and World War II. As a teenager I lived through the Cuban missile crisis and the Kennedy assassination. Children today have been exposed to the horrors of 9/11. All these things are far more troubling for children than a bit of pr0n on the Internet.
So, short of shutting up children in some sort of tightly controlled, heavily censored environment (hmm, sounds like a jail), they will be exposed to bad stuff. Perhaps, instead of trying to shield our little darlings, we should instead be teaching them that the world is not always a nice place. We should be giving them the tools to deal with nastiness and worse. I think this is a far healthier approach to take -- as well as more practical.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
This law allowed the government to withhold funds from any library not applying the appropriate filtering software, or having ineffective filtering software. All filtering software is incomplete meaning you could "prove" arbitrarily that any library or group of libraries is unworthy of Fed funds due to ineffective Web filtering software.
The filtering software also blocks educational/informational sites on things like: breast cancer, testicular cancer, tourism in Essex and Sussex, and sex education. Not to mention blocking adult content from adults.
The core of the law has good intentions (another brick to the road to Hell), but the legaleze is vague and inappropriate.
I've seen news stories locally (Baltimore) that claim this "requires libraries to allow pr0n surfing." Not so. Long before this law, most libraries have rules against such things, and still do. They also had a child internet area in view of a librarian's desk, and the adult area computers were off limits to ages 12 and under.
I think the children were being protected just fine by the libraries already. Maybe we should let them take care of their own business.
WOO HOO!
Parents, if you don't want your kids to be exposed to materials on the internet you find objectionable, don't let them use the internet. Up until middle school, at the earliest, I don't see any reason why a child would NEED to use the internet. And by then they've probably seen/heard everything at their local public school.
And of course, parents who don't care what their children see are free to let them run wild.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The best idea I have heard is new extensions, it still allows circumvention but it's close to perfect you can get on the internet. I think I heard Bush mention something about a new url extension, blocking it from the browser is simple and fairly secure...
Personally I think a lot of legislation forced down on children is entirely unfair, especially considering they have no vote or say in it. LIke I still thinks it's rediculous to have a drinking age of 21 but a smoking age of 18. I think that if kids are old enough to have an M16 tossed into their hands and told to go die for their country, they are old enough to have a couple of beers. Sexism is heavily frowned upon, and so is racism, why not ageism? Because all the policy makers are old and have forgotten what it's like to be young. It made me so angry when I was 18 and I signed up for a 20K loan to cover my first year of college. It made me angry I was old enough to put myself 20 thousand dollars in debt, but not old enough to drink certain kinds of beverages.
Anonymous Cowards - Oh God, How I hate you
If my kids want/need to be on the internet they go to our central computer in our dining room which is in full view of most of the house. The computers in my kids rooms while networked together for games do not have internet access.
It would have been nice for this to pass for the loser parents that don't know or care what their kids are getting into.
Censorship? I don't think so. For crying out loud you need a license to own a dog but any idiot can have a child.
Sanity is overrated...Being CRAZY is much more fun!!!
On the other hand how do you propose to put an access control that won't violate anyones privacy?
<em>The court also said screening methods suggested by the government, including requiring Web-page viewers to give a credit card number, would unfairly require adults to identify themselves before viewing constitutionally protected material such as medical sites offering sex advice. </em>
That last issue seems like it will be the downfall of any access-control system. How do you both prove age while maintaining anonymity? They're mutually exclusive things.
What makes people think a law like this will help to protect their children from pr0n on the internet. Even if a law is enacted within the united states, there is no way of them forcing this law on sites situated outside their borders. It would be completely useless
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
It seems that in the states, most of the top-level domains are here. What if we gave each registrar rights to a porn-style top-level domain, and enforced that adult sites be there. That way, it is nothing more than an inconvenience to them, it's easy for us admins to block the top-level domains, and no free speech violated. Everyone's happy. Anyone got a problem with that, besides the content filtering cmopanies?
Seems like many people just don't want to face the fact that there is violence and nudity in the world. They ignore it in while we go to war, they ignore it on the streets and they try to simply not deal with it anywhere they encounter it. It would be much better if people faced the fact that most of the world is not like the Mall. If kids were educated about what goes on and the consequences of these things instead of insulated and kept ignorant, maybe they wouldn't have such devastating consequences. Maybe advertising that plays to our ignorance wouldn't work as well. Maybe people would realize that "Bombing Evil" is overly-simplistic and have some understanding that it could have more consequences than a football game.
Because other people are watching your actions in the store?
--- I do not moderate.
but back in the real world, not likely
National Association of Marlon Brandon Look Alikes?
Perhaps it's just which side of the issue you choose to err on; personally, I'd prefer open access for all, where I retain the role of acting as my child's filter.
Are there any studies that demonstrate that occasionally stumbling on adult content can damage a child? It seems far-fetched to me.
Something has to be done to give parents a fighting chance, however. Chances are that most kids are going to be more adept at using the computer than their parents, resulting in either ineffective monitoring by the parent or evasion of monitoring by kids.
:)
Well call me naive, or maybe European (which I am), but I'm still wondering what is so wrong with kids occasionaly seeing naked people.
Really. Is there any proof that children that have seen sexual scens turn out to be dangerous criminals, perverts, or worse Polticians ?
In my contry we still have adult magazins right next to the "standard" magazins in shops. Children are exposed to these as well as on TV, even in the lamest Ad for shampoo you have naked women and such. And any kid that that is looking for some "exposure" only has to wait for some weekends late night (23h-1am) movies.
I'm still pretty sure that all the fuss about p0rn comes from the lack of knowledge of it. It's like most things in life. If it's forbiden then you will damn well try to get it. How hard is it for parents to simply explain to their kid what sex is, why their are porno magazins, and hence why their are porno Sites on the net.
I mean, my parents did it, and although they are in my mind Uber parents, I'm sure a lot of others have done it too.
Murphy(c)
Oh and by the way I haven't turned out to be a child rapist or pervert.... yet.
I may be reading this wrong, but what this ruling says to me is that it would be okay for someone to stand outside your child's school and hold up placards of explicit pornography and it would be called free speech and you could not leagally stop them!!??
it's illegal to sell adult viewing materials to children, however it is deemed unconstitutional to require websites to verify age because they may accidentally block someone who is of age. what does the court say about adult bookstores? the requirement to show id could block adults who don't have their id on them.
i would like to raise one other point for discussion purposes--is pornography really part of speech or the press? i submit this for discussion, but it seems to me that pornography is a product designed to help people get off. i would not classify it as speech or part of the press. you could call it art or expression (and that's quite a stretch, i think), but the constitution says nothing that protects either of those (aside from protecting speech and press which are merely subsets of expression). hell, punching a guy in the face because i don't like him is expression--clearly not protected.
i'm not saying these materials should or should not be allowed. i'm just wondering what bearing the constitution has on the issue. do that many people actually believe the contitution guarentees the right to buy and sell pictures of naked people, or do judges today just call anything uncontistution that they don't like and can't stop by the constitutionally defined legislative process?
i'm curious what people think.
char *mySig;
Should the indecent exposure laws be repealed?
These laws are in place so people will not see certain things. In the past this was judged by society to be a good thing.
Enter the Internet. Many things on the Internet, parents would not want there children to see, especially at young ages.
Parents have a choice watch their kids always while on the Internet(sounds simple but not realistic)
But some sort of software to block(not real effective from what I hear).
Ban the internet.
Free use of Internet.
The problem is this, a friends of mine's son(8 years old) usually goes to certain kids sight to play games(lego.com etc) He got bored and then when to boy.com because to him is sounded innocent.
Big mistake, men-on-men and lots of it.
This is not something most parents want their children to be exposed to at such a young age.
Most parents don't want porn off the internet, they just want porno e-mails and sites like boy.com off to stop.
The mud slinging I hear around here is not going to solve the problems, and this is a problem that will have to be solved.
From the article:
This is much more of a problem than just "violating" your privacy by identifying yourself. There is a real risk of credit card fraud here. Anyone remember the stories about the so called "free" pr0n sites asking for a CC# (under this law) so they could verify age, then charging the person's card because they put a clause somewhere in the fine print?
Would you really want to give out your CC# to every site which has "PG" "PG-13", or "R" rated content? That's probably half the sites on the internet. This is a stupid law. IIRC this is the law where the same standard also applies to any site which you can post messages or give out personal information. (Right now they just require playing with cookies) There goes the other half.
"This is great," said Skeet Malone, owner of the fetish site Plumpers Unlimited. "Libraries and schools are how we develop new markets and lifelong addicts. We're even thinking of making the first month free. After that, all their desires are belong to us."
"Porn fans should take pride in their unique tastes, but shouldn't have to give actual names when accessing their lovely adult craft sites," said Dr. Richard Anderson III, the political correspondent and columnist for 'Juggs' magazine. "They should be able to have anonymity, much like the brown trenchcoat provides some protection for the connoisseur of fleshy cinema in adult art houses across the land. Why I hear Paul Reubens was wearing a lovely London Fog number when he was arrested."
"There's no shame in that," said Anderson III. "Everyone needs some double-D action now and then."
--- Ban humanity.
Chances are that most kids are going to be more adept at using the computer than their parents, resulting in either ineffective monitoring by the parent or evasion of monitoring by kids.
In as few as 30 years, the ruling class will be made up largely by people who grew up with computers - and there has never been an oppressed community (the net-savvy) whose distinguishing charachteristic (the internet) acted directly as such a powerful organizing tool.
Mark my words - within our lifetimes, it will become impossible for this kind of fascist bullshit to get pushed through government, and computer law will make sense. Maybe this is already happening.
In the meantime, parents who want "a fighting chance" should take note: drop the "I am not a computer person" attitude and learn what your kids already know about the internet. It actually takes less effort to do this than it takes to whine about your problems to the government. And your kids will be overjoyed at the chance to teach you something!
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
Most of the people on slashdot think that it is ok fr my child who is in school in the library, or even down to the local library doing homework, to be able to access pornography or to have it shoved inot his face. You can teach a child it is wrong to go hunting for it, and many will abide, but many times pornography can be to easily stumbled onto on the internet. Once it is viewed that can never be taken away. A childs live may be spoiled or turned to thinking of things they should never have to think about. Many of you feel that it is a childs right to view porn if they want to? There are laws to prevent it from going into the hands of those under 18 for a reason. To make one for the filters in libraries is a good thing for children. the rigths of adults don't matter in this circumstance. The biggest customers at a library is underage. If an adult needs to view porn then in the public eye is not the place for it. I can't be everywhere my child is. that is impossible. I can try to make it so that they don't have to view things that they shouldn't be seeing. The only people fighting for porn to be in childs hands are child pornographers, and I don't understand why there isn't a mandatory death penalty for tehm as it is.
Freedom of speech is a bitch, isn't it? Freedom of speech means that I am going to hear/read/see things that I find offensive (like your little hissy-fit) and you are going to see/read/hear things that you find offensive (like me mocking you). But that's the price we pay for the ability to speak our minds.
There have always been and shall always be those who abuse the system, who push the limits too far. But does that mean we have to give up our rights and freedoms because of these assholes? You woiuld surrender your freedoms that easily?
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
This is the kind of judicial pronouncement that I like to see. Logical, libertarian, etc.
My one hesitation is that I think that parents should have a "reasonable" way to prevent their children from seeing unapproved sites. That way really needs to be addressed in the free market through private companies that compile lists of various types of taboo sites, and sell that list to concerned parents.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
I noticed in reading the comments that people seem to have confused COPA, the Children's Online Protection Act, which seeks to restrict content posted by web site owners, and CIPA, the Children's Internet Protection Act, which seeks to require schools and libraries to use Internet filters to block access to sexually explicit material.
;) Don't forget COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, and CPPA, the so-called "virtual child porn" law.
7 48-2002May31.html
I can't believe you can't keep these laws straight!
Short & sweet VERY GOOD article explaining which law is which, and their current status (if, like COPA and CIPA, currently being challenged in the courts): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39
Liza
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
Why is it that the government must mandate the protection of children? This is and should be the domain of the parents. If you, as a person, decide to have a child, you are taking on the responsibilities that go with it. That means that you have to spend time with the child, spend money on the child, and protect the child. If you deem that the internet has inappropriate content on it then you need to do something about it. Quite simply, I didn't decide to have the child, I want no part in that responsibility, and there is no reason that I should be forced to deal with it. (It takes a parent to raise a child, not a village. Unless you are willing to give me spanking rights when your child is acting up and you won't deal with it, don't ask me to take any responsibility for it.) So, feel free to do what you need to do to protect your child, but damn well don't interfere with my ability to view porn anonymously. If/When I have children I will extend everyone else the same courtesy.
In my, not quite so humble, opinion, this is a great argument for having some sort of parenting license. You are not allowed to have children unless you have been through some basic courses in how to control and look after your child, and have passed a worthwhile test at the end of it. Have little concepts in there like: The TV/Computer is not a babysitter; You are responsible for the Morals which your child learns; etc. Basic stuff that parents seem to be lacking these days. Also, I would probably add some sort of financial requirement to having children, if the child is going to be stuck in poverty and possibly end up starving, why the hell are you having a kid? As for implementing the licenseing, that would be the tough part, you would need a way to enforce sterilization on everyone (men and women) but have it reversible for once they obtain a license. This would also have the added benifit of stamping out teen pregnancy.
Is the above idea a bit too heavy handed? Certainly, but if we are going to try and legislate morals, why not go all the way?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
..you have good enough filters :)
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
I figured that in distinguishing those who have Right political leanings from those who reinforce them by trying to enforce them on others was inherent in the wording, but that was my fault. Several of my good friends are pious Christians with Republican/Conservative beliefs who I classify as plain Right since they feel no need to shove their stuff down anyone's throat. But you're right about the nutcases who grab all of the attention claiming that their actions are "God's will" yet couldn't name more than 3 or 4 passages out of the Bible. I deemed these folks the Christian Right, figuring the two should be seperated, but I see your point that in the future improved clarity is necessary. Regardless, the fanatics should not be allowed to deliver their own brand of religion into schools. They're now trying it parts of my home state just as they did in the state where I used to live (and in the latter claiming that ther church vs. state argument doesn't apply since all they wanted was to teach the "truth"...). Censorship at this level is only acceptable IMO because children are involved, but who regulates the content they can view is a difficult questions. Like a good compromise the means to resolve this issue will likely leave everyone mad regardless of religious or political stance.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Adult TLDs are the answer, except for one small twist to the common idea that there should be a domain such as ".xxx" or whatever, to specify adult content. Personally I think this idea sucks, because what do you rate, and how do you rate, what is meant to be in that domain? There are just so many problems here because of the multitide of grey areas and issues with enforcement and so on, what is needed is a way to get domain holders to WANT to comply with protecting a child from "adult" content.
.xxx domain.
So, my little twist is simply to not have adult TLDs, but turn it on its head and have a TLD especially for websites that offer content suitable for children and minors to view. This is much, much easier to enforce (in my view), and those sites which wish to appeal to children will WANT to actively try and promote this domain, whereas an adult site may not wish to be "tainted" with the
It also means we are not restricting the right of adults to set their own limits on what is acceptable and not acceptable, which I believe is a good thing. By offering sites a TLD which is suited to minors it would allow a parent to set up a browser to ONLY allow access to those sites.
Overall, I personally feel such a solution is viable, would be effective, and solve the problem without needing the restrictive measures against EVERYONE to appease those parents who do not monitor their child's internet usage.
... I guess
... but the US Selective service doesn't even require you to REGISTER for the draft until you're 18, which not so coincidentally, is voting age in the US. And we're not actually DRAFTING anyone of ANY age.
A couple of random columnists in (mostly) right-wing publications hardly constitutes much of a push to bring back the draft. It certainly isn't getting talked about in Congress. The military isn't asking for it. It ain't exactly being discussed on the 1800 news. You could probably find press references that want equal time in schools to teach that the earth is flat... but that doesn't mean that there's a "push to teach flat-earth theory".
And besides... the draft has NEVER applied to anyone under the age of 18! No one under 18 has to register now! So even if they do bring back the draft, it's not like they intend to "draft anyone who can't vote".
Sean
"cross dressing, fisting, anal sex, pedophilia, and other "perfectly natural choices"`
WTF. Where the fsck do they teach that. That's not cool at all.
"I can't drive 55. It only goes 38."
1. Congress makes stupid law
2. Courts overturn law, slap Congress' wrist
3. goto 1
"Even if a law is enacted within the united states, there is no way of them forcing this law on sites situated outside their borders. It would be completely useless "
Um, maybe because the law applied to libraries in the US? It's not like they were trying to get site operators somewhere else to tag stuff, they were trying to get libraries to put filtering software in. I somehow don't see kids doing van pools to go to Canadian libraries so they can cruise porn.
"Don't let your kids have their own PC until they can buy one on their own."
:P. and what are we trying to censor, anyway, and why? are we trying to protect them from strangers? teach them to be strong. teach them how to use a weapon [firearm and or pointed edge]. my parents threw me in martial arts lessons at a young age...if i were to come across my '10 years younger' self i wouldn't mess with him even if i had a knife on me. there are scary people in the Real World - deal with it.
computers are cheap if you aren't so elitist-if you pointed your nose just a little below the horizon you'd see you can get most 386's for free and computers less than that for free. cheap 486's can range below 100$[canadian] to near 25$[canadian] for used...I think i had 5 computers running at one time not to long ago, and i paid 20$[canadian] for the whole hardware setup [mostly, one 3com ISA NIC card]. A more reasonable alternative may be 'when they are old enough to know how to configure their computer to attatch to the family hub/router/network/Modem, then they may view whatever they please. That would have stopped me -- most of the time that i lived at home my computer was about to be connected 'Real Soon' -- but due to problems with the process i was having trouble. Besides that, if they fuck up a free computer with virii [not mind you that most computer virii work on anything less than windows 95 anyway...i can't speak for low levels of Linux...]...
hell, if they are smart enough to get that far, chances are they are smart enough to bypass whatever else you can throw at them [honestly]...and this is supposing there is content you wouldn't trust them with in the first place...
as for myself, i showed my dad the Usenet [he didn't realized it existed...] IMAGINE THE PORN i pointed out...! i shared
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.