Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Supreme Court To Rule On Online Porn Law

Posted by timothy on from the pursuit-of-happiness dept.

froggle2003 writes "Sites like goodfig.org and NEWS.com.au are among the first to report that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to rule on the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The COPA was passed in 1998 in an effort to crack down on sites that don't block porn from children. It calls for 6 months in jail and $50,000 in fines for first-time violaters. Opponents of the COPA led by the ACLU are quick to note that the COPA makes criminals of many individuals using the internet for legitimate purposes such as providing information on anatomy, gynecology, safe-sex advice, etc."

4 of 386 comments (clear)

  1. Legitimate purposes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Opponents of the COPA led by the ACLU are quick to note that the COPA makes criminals of many individuals using the internet for legitimate purposes such as providing information on anatomy, gynecology, safe-sex advice, etc."

    But porn (for adults) is a legitimate purpose. Unsavory, perhaps, but legitimate.

  2. Nice idea. by ideatrack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know if this is a cleat-cut as it could be, and the point about this filtering out sites on safe-sex is slightly preterbing.

    The main thing is "children" is a very broad term, and while I wouldn't want a 4 year-old viewing information on contraceptives, I would if they are at an age where this information is relevant and important.

    I think the definitions need to be tidied more than they are now, and also feel that this could possibly include sites to do with mutilation etc. With some of the horrific things out there, a child could easily see something really traumatic.

    I don't know, this just feels a little like all the SPAM legislation, a nice idea but something which is going to take much more than a law to counteract.

    I can't help but feel that better parenting would help. After all there are schemes in the UK which are predominantly to educate parents to watch what their children are doing etc.

  3. BBC News article... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's the BBC's story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3191676.stm.

    The article also contains some interesting links, to the Internet Watch Foundation, ACLU, etc.

    There are huge freedom of speech implications here. I'm not condoning pornographic content where it's likely to be seen by young, impressionable kids but it seems to me that you can't truly have freedom of speech unless you recognise everyone's freedom of speech, and not just freedom for those you deem morally or politically acceptable.

    Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too. This looks like one of those times.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    1. Re:BBC News article... by Eivind · · Score: 5, Insightful
      but it seems to me that you can't truly have freedom of speech unless you recognise everyone's freedom of speech, and not just freedom for those you deem morally or politically acceptable.

      This is 100% correct, and I applaud you for making this observation.

      However, you can strengthen the observation even more. Freedom of speech is arguably only an interesting concept when it comes to the freedom of thos making unpopular (for whatever definition of unpopular) statements of some sort.

      After all, if you think about it, popular statements are allowed everywhere. Even in North Korea it is perfectly allowed (indeed, I would imagine encouraged !) to make statements of a certain type that the government likes.

      Thus it can be argued that the only sensible measure of our real freedom of speech is how much freedom we extend to those who make statements that we do not like.

      Porn. Radical propaganda. Fictious child-porn. Bomb making instructions. Instructions on how to watch DVDs under Linux (sorry, couldn't resist that one). Information on how to grow drug-yielding plants.

      I don't think Americans should be nearly as proud of their freedoms as many are.