Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Strikes Down COPA, 1998 Online Porn Law

Posted by kdawson on from the one-for-free-speech dept.

Begopa sends in word that a federal judge has struck down the Child Online Protection Act. The judge said that parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit others' rights to free speech. This was the case for which the US Department of Justice subpoenaed several search companies for search records; only Google fought the order. The case has already been to the Supreme Court. Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. wrote in his decision: "Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection."

11 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. A step in the right direction. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For once, the mouth on the Censorship icon should have the black strip removed. This law has been the dark specter over every forum I've seen for years, and many non-communication-related services, too.

    The question is, is COPA finally dead, for good? No more judgements to be made on the case? Please? The article doesn't specify if it could be appealed again.

    I realize they'll just pass another law with similar provisions, but at least this helps set the tone in the courts.

    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    1. Re:A step in the right direction. by statusbar · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I am very happy about this.

      I wrote the first available internet filter for windows 3.1 The Internet Filter specifically because it is the parent's responsibility to decide what their children should and should not see, not the government's responsibility.

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    2. Re:A step in the right direction. by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 5, Informative

      he is saying they won't be children forever, and that the 1st amendment protections everyone enjoys shouldn't be reduced because of them.

    3. Re:A step in the right direction. by prichardson · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's saying it's more important for the children, when they grow up, to have full first-amendment rights. Basically he's shooting down the ye olde thinkofthechildren argument.

      --
      Help I'm a rock.
    4. Re:A step in the right direction. by toleraen · · Score: 5, Funny

      You sir, were the primary motivation for me to learn how to format a hard drive and reinstall Windows when I was younger!

    5. Re:A step in the right direction. by Ardeaem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that kind of reasoning is the job of legislators, not judges. Like many judges, he has forgotten his role and taken the job of dictator for life. Actually, all this judge did was say that this law was inconsistent with another, higher law (the Constitution). Simply because he notes that the First Amendment is a good idea for adults doesn't mean he's a dictator.

      When did protecting Constitutional rights become being a dictator? This is EXACTLY his job.

    6. Re:A step in the right direction. by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This additional punishment helps remind the felon that they made a choice, and choices have consequences.

      Mostly what it reminds the felon of is that he is a criminal, there is no going back, he has little to no hope in legitimate society in terms of job or rights, and so said felon will be best rewarded by honing skills that are outside legitimate society. In other words, one way or another, making you and yours a target for crime. For example, if he wants a gun, he has to steal yours. If he wants to live at a higher standard than the street, he needs to rob you. If he wants diamonds for his girlfriend, your wife's are easier to get than those in a jewelry store, and stealing those from a jewelry store are still easier than buying them. Unless he steals your money, of course. Voting? No, he cannot affect society that way - presuming he ever could. Insurance costs are higher for him, assuming he can even get insured. But he can't get a good job. He can get your money. Or if not, he can sell your daughter. People will do anything to survive; especially if they're pissed off at the people they're doing that "anything" to.

      Infinite punishment in the realm of a free person's rights and reputation is self-defeating for society. You might like the idea, but you really won't like the results when they get around to finding you. And the more people from whom we take these abilities, the more likely you and yours are to be victims. We're creating a broad underclass with a very specific set of skills and giving them a very good reason to resent the rest of us.

      Either adjust the punishment so that criminals who commit the crime at hand must remain in prison for a longer amount of time if you're not satisfied with the current punishment, or leave it the same if you are, but either way, when you release them from imprisonment say they've paid their dues. Don't mix public life with punishment. It is, in the final analysis, harmful to society at all levels.

      The same problem applies to prison conditions. They have to reach minimum standards of humanity. No rapes. No beatings. No exposure to STDs. A chance to improve one's self. Otherwise, when you release these people, you have been effectively beating the wasp's nest with a broom and you really shouldn't be surprised when the first thing that happens is they jam their stinger right into your tender parts. And you know what? After they mug you and kill your spouse, there's no fixing it. And just as you want to tell those felons your ideas about post-prison punishment "helps remind the felon that they made a choice, and choices have consequences", I would simply say the same to you. You made a choice to abuse these people far beyond what is reasonable for society's sake, and now the consequences have come home to roost. maybe next time, you'll be smarter. Because for you, there is nowhere to turn.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  2. bout time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its about time that courts are finally seeing that our personal liberties are more important than fascist legislation that only appears to protect us and/or our children. Lets hope more are to follow.

  3. Awesome by arootbeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a Good Thing®. I'm so tired of hearing about how people aren't being responsible enough, so we need to remove those responsibilities from them. Seems kinda counterintuitive to me.

    Community standards are not a good way to police a country that promises liberty and justice for all.

  4. A lot has to change to make parents responsible by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And just how many families are going to give up that unnecessary second income? *crickets chirping* I thought so.

    I've seen a lot of people of both sexes talk the talk, but then not even walk at all when it's time to walk the walk.

    Parental responsibility includes a recognition that your needs aren't important compared to your family's. You like your job, but don't need it to support your kids? You have a moral obligation to quit if it is getting in the way at all of being a parent.

    But we can't say that today because that's "sexist" and "backward." Funny how well "modernity" seems to be working out for families. Divorce rates through the roof, kids screwed up right and left, but hey, let's ignore all of that and focus on abstract ideas that make us feel good, right?

    1. Re:A lot has to change to make parents responsible by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Throw a couple of kids into the mix, and anyone at or below the "lower-middle-class" income bracket is struggling, big-time.
      I just wish we could figure who is forcing people to have kids.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.