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

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."

Comments

Legitimate purposes?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Legitimate purposes?

[ezraekman]

The point is not that pr0n is not legitimate. Preferences and beliefs aside, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and hanging out in clubs and bars is "legitimate", and legal. But not for children. The point is that there are no safeguards in place to keep minors from accessing it... but the problem with this legislation is that, like some of it's legal predecessors, it seems to fail to properly distinguish pr0n from art, science, etc.

The article quotes the Bush administration as saying that children are unprotected from the harmful effects of the enormous amount of pr0n on the world wide web. And that may be true. But it sounds like this law would be the equivalent of protecting children from cigarettes by prosecuting stores who sold them candy cigarettes or cough syrup. After all, candy cigarettes are *like* real ones, just as discussing sexual technique is *like* sex stories. And cough syrup is *like* beer, because it also contains alcohol. Perhaps the latter is a bad example; I'm not sure if there's an age requirement for purchasing this type of medication, but I think the point stands.

I believe that some kind of safeguards should indeed be in place, even with some of these non-pr0n sites. For example, a parent may not want a child to know the ins and outs (no pun intended) of the birds and the bees as they pertain to disabled adults, until the child is older. That is the parent's decision. Thus, some sort of rating system may be better suited than an all-encompassing "THIS IS UNSUITABLE FOR KIDS, SO IT IS OBSCENE" statement. Sure, require a bit of code for filtering software to pick up. If the code doesn't exist, apply a fine, penalty, etc. But it should fit the instance. Getting pr0n results from a search for prescription drugs is a lot different than stumbling across the reproductive system on a medical site. Simply assessing the same fine for allowing access to any and all types of "inappropriate" material makes no sense. That's like allowing the removal of basic civil rights from a burglar simply by labeling him a "terrorist". Oh, wait a minute...

So Theodore Olson says the main target is commercial pornographers. So what? Since when has the "targeted group of offenders" ever stopped the government from prosecuting anyone it wishes? While I think imprisoning someone who's set up a meth lab is legitimate, prosecuting him for creating "chemical weapons of mass destruction" using a set of guidelines so broad that glue, bleach and motor oil also qualifies for is ridiculous. Let me guess... there's going to be a clause in here somewhere that makes "distribution of non-age-appropriate materials an act of terror, as a method for inciting rebellion in the homeland's children", right? We need to be specific, and our government has already shown that they cannot be trusted to interpret a law for themselves. Either we need to do it beforehand, or we should not pass the law. To do otherwise potentially allows innocent people to be prosecuted, or guilty parties to be punished far in excess of what is appropriate. You only need look at the recent history of the "Patriot" Act to see this.

For sites that contain content of an adult nature, perhaps an "I am over such-and-such age" entry form is appropriate. If so, the wording of said form might be set by the state... but that probably isn't necessary. It's easy enough to word something that says "If x, click here; if y, click here." Also, code might be put in place to warn off filtering software, which the parent is responsible for installing. If the parent fails to do so, that is not the site operator's fault. Perhaps there should indeed be a classification system for ratings... but it is important that we are A) very specific, and B) very understanding of what we are doing when we decide what is considered "adult entertainment", "mature information", etc. And dammit, no more "Oh, I didn't have time to read it properly" legislation! How many times have we read this in the news lately!?

Nice idea.

[ideatrack]

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.

Random Info

[Anonymous Coward]

People involved with the bill can be found with this press release.

COPA has its own site and a commision that put it together. Interestingly, they link to a bunch of research papers (many pdfs) Hearings and meetings too. Just skimming, it appears they made something of at least an attempt at a balanced inqury.

And what karma whoring post would be complete without a link to the statute?

This is a typical example...

[mgcsinc]

This was a typical example of the government imposing unenforcable rules on the internet in the classical why-can't-they-just-hold-their-ID-up-to-the-screen style. Almost never before the internet came along did you have people who genuinely wanted to act legally but had no idea how. Credit-card verification is out, kids can have credit/debit cards at 13 now. No using checking accounts for verification, those can be had by kids even younger. Driver's licenses? Not nationalized. I guess until a generation which grew up with computer-in-hand runs the legislature, we'll be seeing more and more of this absurdity...

Won't someone protect the children! - The Simpsons

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I find that american culture tries too hard to keep thier children "innocent". They do this by "protecting" them from the harmless truth. And what purpose does it serve? Maybe pornography will keep some of those hormones back at home, and out of school. There is more good then bad in porn.

1. The actresses make money to support them.
2. Look at other countries and how they deal with porn, and how many rapes they have. I dont think that a sex open society is going to have as many rapes as one that isnt.
3. Its good clean fun...... Admit it, we all know you like porn, dont deny. and if you do deny(and your a man) then likelyhood is that your a liar.

Besides shouldnt we be more busy protecting our kids from voilence than from porn. Whats worse, having sex, or killing people. I would like to have any person prove to me why pornography is morally wrong, and no "they will become a sexual deviant" bullshit.

Ben Barber

BBC News article...

[WIAKywbfatw]

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.

Re:BBC News article...

[Eivind]

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.

Better Idea Innit

[ajs318]

I'd be in favour of making it an offence to allow a minor unsupervised access to the Internet. We didn't have such things when I was a kid. It didn't do me any harm. Of course, alongside that would have to be making it an offence to deny adults access to "objectionable" content.

There are many districts in many cities where all sorts of stuff goes on that you wouldn't want young kids being around. Solution? Don't let your kids go there, at least, not on their own.

We live in an adult world. The Internet is an adult invention. Nobody ever intended it to be suitable for children. Deal with it. For crying out loud! You can't watch certain films till you're 12 or 15; you can't buy fags or have sex till you're 16; you can't drink booze, bet on sporting events or watch other people having sex till you're 18. Anybody complaining about adults smoking, drinking, gambling, having sex and watching certain kinds of films is rightly denounced. What's to complain about? Sooner or later you'll be old enough.