U.S. Supreme Court to Debate COPA

il dus writes "The Christian Science Monitor is reporting that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which seeks to restrict adult content on the internet, will be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. This law has already been declared unconstitutional twice by federal appeals courts because it is, in their opinion, overly broad and restrictive of free speech on the Internet."

Comments

Not that it was ever any good

[nathanhart]

Most implementations of the COPAA basically boiled down to a link asking if you where born after a certain date or not, if you where under 13 and clicked the appropriate link you where usually sent to a page saying the site didn't allow people at that age to register for the site with out parent permission and giving a link to a form their parent/guardian could fill out and mail in. Most of the kids two a couple extra brain cells, click back and register saying they are old enough and just never tell any one they are under age. We won't even go into how many sites have no information for parents/guardians to fill out and send in. A quick stroll though the info on the COPAA makes it seem as if it where more aimed at educating kids in technologies and the proper use of them than protecting them from inappropriate things which leads me to believe it was just one of those things that gets tagged on to a bill that was in some sort had a purpose in the start

Re:Those evil conservatives

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we have to insist on perpetuating this myth that there is any difference between libral Democrats and Conservative Republicans? Both parties are hypocritical towards their ideologies.

Examples:

Democrats: We want to help the unfortunate, and less advantaged with social programs.
Result? Societal leaches hog pork barrel resources and the truly needy are still ignored or worse, outright rejected.

Republicans: We want big government off our backs, and let capitalism decide what is best.
Result? Corporate welfare programs and enormous tax shelter schemes for big business drive smaller companies and sole proprietorships into the ground.

CDA II isn't necessarily a "conservatives only" agenda. It's a power trip for any politician. If they don't like tone of your site, they can declare it indecent and effectively force your voice offline. So much for "freedom of speech".

Quite frankly I don't find the subject even remotely amusing.

ob: you insensitive clod

[spikedvodka]

The "good-ole-U-S-of-A" doesn't own the internet, and hence can't regulate it...

That being said, they can regulate servers based in the US, but that's about it

maybe the supreme court will realize this... bah who am i kidding/what am I smoking

Re:ob: you insensitive clod

[ReaperOfSouls]

The "good-ole-U-S-of-A" doesn't own the internet, and hence can't regulate it...

Very true, but it sure doesn't stop governments from trying. Heck just take a look at the Great Firewall of China...

Of course...

[Tuxedo Jack]

What will this do, if anything, to curb spyware on childrens' computers? I remember cleaning kids' machines infested with Bonzi Buddy and crap like that meant to lure children in for marketing purposes.

Re: Child montoring software

[mwheeler01]

Yes but the solution presented in your humble opinion would require some sort of definition of pornography and that is where things get really sticky. The Supreme Court has had a few flimsy definitions of profanity/adult content, some of which boil down to local standards which, in the case of the internet, would not apply. Some would argue that what the Supreme Court policy on profanity is that it is better to let a little profanity slip through the cracks than ban all questionable material.

Also it is important to note that some politicians may have put their name on this bill because it is popular with their constituants, not because they believe the bill to be constitutional.