Slashdot Mirror


COPA Suffers Yet Another Court Defeat

A US federal appeals court today struck down COPA, the Child Online Protection Act, a Clinton-era censorship law that the Justice Department has been struggling to get implemented for a decade. (The ACLU filed suit as soon as COPA was signed in 1998 and won an immediate injunction.) The battle has made it to the Supreme Court twice, and the DoJ has essentially never gotten any satisfaction out of the courts. This was the case for which the DoJ famously went trolling for search histories. In the ruling issued today, the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court ruling that COPA violates the First Amendment because it is not the most effective way to keep children from visiting adult Web sites. The law would require sites to check visitors' ages, e.g. by taking a credit card, if the site contained any material that is "harmful to minors," whatever that means.

18 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. Good by Smackheid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Parents, it's your job to watch your kids, not anybody else's.

    --
    Je me fous du passé
    1. Re:Good by Smackheid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Careful son, that's commie talk.

      --
      Je me fous du passé
    2. Re:Good by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By idiotic, unenforceable laws that anyone but a mental retard knows is a violation of the Constitution and is going to get kicked out (after, of course, costing all the parties involved a shitload of attorney's fees)?

      This had absolutely nothing to do with protecting children or any other vulnerable group. It's called pandering. The politicians that enact it do indeed hope that their constituents are mental retards.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Good by digitrev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Politicians understand politics. They know that by trotting out "Think of the children", any numbskull with kids will vote for them "because our precious baby will be hurt" if they don't. Politics and the law are two different things. Politicians write the law (well, some of them do, other times industry writes it for them and they just sign off on it), but they don't necessarily expect it'll get enforced. Just that they can say "I voted for a bill protecting America's children" when election time rolls around.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    4. Re:Good by tm2b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The way to protect children is to world-proof them, not by trying to child-proof the world.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    5. Re:Good by bioradmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well then, I hope I can rest assured that you will be in the 2008 United States presidential election? Since you seemingly have a firmer grasp on politics then those that have devoted much more time and effort into that area of life.

      I think that is the problem. You think the Constitution is a political issue.

    6. Re:Good by digitrev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Damn straight I want politicians afraid to pass laws. They should debate it, talk to judges, talk to lawyers, and for god's sake think about these laws before they pass them.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was referring to your line "violation of the constitution" that chumps like you bark out whenever any law is enacted, ever. You don't have a right to murder. You don't have a right to steal. You don't have a right to trespass. You don't have a right to rape. "Essential Liberty" does not include exposing children to pornographic material.

      Straw man arguments are lies.

    8. Re:Good by Grave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Emergency law?? No such thing. If it has time to clear Congress, it is not an emergency.

      What you're thinking of is an Executive Order, which is designed for situations like this. I can think of only a handful of REAL emergencies where violation of the constitution is legitimately the best response. A wide-scale biological warfare attack being one (all interstate travel would have to be completely shut down and blocked by the military to stop the spread, even if it meant killing anyone who attempted to leave town), or perhaps a military invasion by China or some other power. Those are emergencies that I could accept such violations for, so long as once the immediate situation was corrected, the Executive Order expired. The 9/11 attacks represented, at best, a one week emergency. Air travel was completely shut down, the stock markets were closed, and quite frankly, everybody was a bit scared - was it the precursor to something bigger? Was it just a bunch of suicidal terrorists who got really lucky? We didn't know at first. Within a week, it became clear that it wasn't the start of World War III, and although there was still tremendous uncertainty about our future, we knew that any further attacks were going to be really really tough to pull off. Everyone was more vigilant (paranoid, really), and it was universally agreed amongst Americans that if a terrorist tried to hijack another plane, we'd not even hesitate to fight back. So, the markets reopened and air travel resumed on 9/17 (if memory serves). During that week, I'd have understood, and perhaps even begrudgingly accepted if massive wiretapping had occurred (though I'd have fully expected a very thorough and public Senate inquiry into such an Executive Order afterwords). The Patriot Act was not signed into law until 10/26, more than six weeks after the attacks. The "emergency" period was over. Hell, by that time, US special forces were in Afghanistan, coordinating with the rebels and preparing for the domino collapse of the Taliban.

      As for your assertion that a few months or a year would have been needed, I beg you to more carefully consider that view. Why would you sacrifice a year of your freedom to prevent a terrorist attack? If by some magic, giving up one year of freedom would prevent any and all future terrorist attacks, I'd be fine with that. But it's a delusion of grandeur to believe that the world works that way. Taking away the freedoms of a people is a wonderful way to inspire terrorism. The laws in place allowed for more than enough protection from 9/11 - the problem wasn't with the laws, it was with the poor budget and management of our intelligence organizations, combined with a bit of luck on the part of the perpetrators and the shear audacity of the plan.

    9. Re:Good by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to agree. In fact my boys started playing before they could walk(Barney Hide & Seek on Sega Genesis),boy was his mom pissed after trying to get him to say Mama for a week only for the oldest first word to be "MINE" when he work up from his nap and caught me playing Eternal Champions on HIS Genesis.

      The oldest started playing FPS with me at 12,and do you know what the horrible things were that he said? "Who wrote this thing? I can shoot them in the toe and they die? And why don't the bad guys duck! Don't just stand there,dodge dummy!". Because I have taught them from birth the difference between games and real life. I showed them how to make buildings in Bryce,explained how editors work,why AI means the difference between "good" bad guys and stupid bad guys,etc. That said,I have seen WAY too many parents that just drop their kids in front of an "idiot box" and use the PC,TV,PS2,etc as a babysitter instead of interacting with the kids. I sit with mine and try out new games,when they are online I am not 10 feet away and often look over their shoulder to make sure they aren't doing something they shouldn't,etc.

      Would they like it better if I just left them to it? probably. But I care about my boys and do everything I can to make sure they are safe. We need to tell folks that it is the governments job to secure the borders and provide national defense,NOT raise their kids for them. I also think(and the religious will hate me for this) that we need to make it a LOT easier to get birth control so we won't have so many kids having kids of their own, perhaps even make parenting classes mandatory for all students. But trying to "make the world safe for 8 year olds" just doesn't work. COPA and laws like it are doomed to fail. The kids will find a way around it,and most of us adults don't want to live in a world where everything is family friendly. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Get off my credit card! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally. Now my children don't have to keep bugging me for my credit card when they want to visit adult sites.

  3. Next stop: Cuomo by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Great, now maybe they can get New York's attorney general from implmenting the same law through the back door.

    http://techdirt.com/articles/20080721/1545501748.shtml">Techdirt's latest on the topic

    --
    Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
  4. Put the computer next to Mommy. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck parental controls. If you believe that your children are not old enough to "surf" on their own, then just put the computer next to you while your children use it.

    "Parenting" - it doesn't end at birth.

  5. Harm to children by Black+Art · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What causes more harm to Children? Porn or Religion?

    I see reports of kids dying because their parents were too superstitious to take them to a doctor because of their religion. i have never heard of a kid dying because he watched a porno movie or read a dirty book.

    Oh wait... These are Metaphorical Children. They don't obey natural laws, only metaphorical ones.

    --
    "Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
  6. Re:What! by digitrev · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pen island. Who represents. Please, hold your applause.

    --
    Cynical Idealist
  7. Re:What! by n+dot+l · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fuck the children!

    George Carlin FTW.

  8. Re:The problem isn't really in parent's hands by taustin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Licenses and education required for breeding.

    Sure. As long as I, and only I, get to decide who gets the license and who doesn't. Remember, the country is currently run by jeezmoid fantatics who believe - literally - in forced breeding.

    Real penalties for not getting help when you can't parent your offspring properly.

    Sure. With a very precise definition of what constitutes "getting help," which will involve getting it from some government office (who else could we trust?). Said office will be open 24 hours a day in affluent, mostly white neighborhoods, and one hour a month in poor, mostly non-white neighborhoods. Of course.

    End absent-parent child support - no amount of money paid to the mother makes up for lack of a responsible two-parent family. If you can't be bothered with birth control you get to live with the results of your inattentiveness.

    Unless, of course, you are a man, in which case you obviously should have no responsibility whatsoever for where you dip your wick. (Yes, that is exactly what you just said - live with the results, but only if you are a woman.)

    Oh, and, BTW, get ready for the tax increases, since all those women will be on welfare. Except, of course, you'd rather let them literally starve. I mean, really, it's not like women are people or anything, right?

    Holding parents responsible for the actions of their children, really. This means that when the 10-year-old kills a neighbor child the parents and the child are responsible. Today often as not the child gets some slap on the wrist punishment because of their age and the parents get nothing. How could you be an effective parent and not know your kid is seriously screwed up when a 10-year-old kills someone?

    Hold the parents responsible in exactly what way? Put them in prison? More tax increases. Plus, more tax increases to take care of their other kids.

    Undoubtably this means more "community resources" and "social workers" to help failing parents.

    Which is to say, more taxes. Lots more taxes. And, if so many parents aren't capable of raising their kids properly, where are you going to find social workers who can? If we can train social workers to raise other people's kids, why can't we use the same money to train parents to raise their own, and then no pay them middle class wages for the rest of their working lives?

    But we are either going to spend the money on the front end or the back end. Right now you can check the prisons for the results of dealing with the problem on the back end.

    You appaerently want to put more people in prison. Then, you turn around and decry how many people are in prison.

  9. "Childhood" is a recent concept by Rastl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it just me that remembers that the idea of "childhood" is at most a century old? Prior to that they were adults-in-training.

    So this entire "Think of the children" crap is more about protecting an idea that these small humans should be shielded from the realities of life instead of educated so they actually do become adults.

    I think the new definition of childhood actually extends into the mid-20s because of more societal pressure. They're in college, they really aren't responsible yet, etc.

    Screw that. It's the parents job to get those little monsters properly trained to be responsible adults. Heck, overseas 'kids' are in professional training schools by they time they're sixteen. Here they're still considered helpless babes who can't do anything without mommy and daddy there to make sure they don't get 'damaged'.

    Don't even get me started on that whole self-esteem vs actual value stuff that the schools are promoting.

    I realize I'm starting to sound like an old fogey but I guess that's what I am. I'm tired of seeing these poor young adults with absolutely no idea of what is expected of them or how to achieve it. And all because of some misguided idea that they should be protected while they're young instead of taught.

    I despair.