Supreme Court Rules on Challenge to COPA

Publiux writes: "LawMeme is reporting today that the Supreme Court upheld portions of the Child Online Protection Act because using community standards to determine what could be harmful to minors was not overly broad and thus not unconstitutional. Before you stop spreading your 'sexually explicit material' online, a lower court still has to determine if the law is unconstitutional for other reasons." Snibor Eoj submits this link to coverage at Yahoo! as well. Other readers link to AP coverage running at NandoTimes and the decision itself (PDF).

For those of you too lazy or ignorant...

[rebelcool (247749)]

...to read the articles, here's the gist:

Supreme Court rules that using a law using 'community standards' does not mean its automatically unconstitutional.

That's it. They then sent the case back to the lower court to try unconstitutionality on other merits.

This was a very limited ruling, and the government is still barred from enforcing the law.

This isn't much of a news story...

Re:For those of you too lazy or ignorant...

[Bootsy Collins (549938)]

This was a very limited ruling, and the government is still barred from enforcing the law.

This isn't much of a news story...

I think the real story is in the fact that eight out of nine justices asserted that a law regulating content on the net which relied upon local community standards was not overbroad -- that is, that those who wish to obey such laws must cater to the community standards of every place in the U.S. or risk prosecution. Whether the COPA itself is ultimately upheld or struck down, this statement about the sort of content restrictions of which the Court would approve with is kinda scary, IMHO.

Send 'em back to school

[CaptainSuperBoy (17170)]

Send them back to school.. because they are obviously unable to read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Re:Send 'em back to school

[by Anonymous Coward]

Justice and fairness is a highly complex philosophical question. If laws could be fairly interpreted by common (and let's face it, stupid) people we would not need to have lawyers and judges around.

At best common justice is barbaric "eye for an eye" justice.

My favorite definition of anarchist:

[kfg (145172)]

Someone who doesn't *need* a cop just to tell him what to do.

KFG

Re:Send 'em back to school

[ekephart (256467)]

Right, but freedom doesn't mean whatever, whenever, whoever. There is a reason why it is illegal to publish child pornography (yes I know that's not what the ruling was about). Same reason that a 13yr old boy can't walk into a beer store and by Playboy. The law states that parents' ability to police their children's activities online is becoming more and more difficult. It also says that as a result government has a responsilibity to help. It would be hard to stop Timmy from buying Playboy on the walk home from school, so there is a law to prevent him from doing so.

No doubt, as the articles say, Congress did have good intentions here. It was aiming to make it difficult for children to get pornography even without their parents around - just like the beer store scenario. The problem here is that in the beer store the person working there can use his/her judgement and stop the child. Even with preventative measures on the Internet it would be similar to porn locked up in a case of sorts, no person working at the beer store, and the child possessing sufficient skills to pick the lock. The beer store could have a camera or some other security device that monitors the case, but on the Internet how would this be implemented? Would there be a system where each user is tracked where they go? I don't think so.

Then what if the site is hosted outside the United States? Then, as one poster has laready said, what if the owner of the site vacations in Florida, will they be arrested?

This law is messy. This subject is messy, and I don't have an answer.

Re:Send 'em back to school

[the_2nd_coming (444906)]

ok, tell me where the speach was abridged?

Abridgment: The act of abridging or the state of being abridged

Abridged: To cut short; curtail

Regulate: To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law

sems to me that by telling internet porn sites that they will be held to community standards is a regulation, not an abridgment.

one thing they realy erks me though, is the miss interpretation of the reigion clause. saying a child can not pray in school or where the garb of his/her religion or even display symbols of your religion in school is a bastardization of the meaning of that clause.

Re:Send 'em back to school

[xtal (49134)]

Don't like it, don't look at pr0n. Don't want your kids to look at pr0n, then watch your kids. What goes on between consenting adults and or a photographer is none of the state's business. If you need the state to babysit your children, then don't have them. You should be a big boy and be able to restrain yourself, and the GOD FORBID glance at a 18 year old's breast isn't going to kill you.

Some people might find the bible an incredibly sexist, violent, and inappropriate for minors piece of material, too. Same can be said for just about everything. You think it's wrong? Fine, but don't deny me the fun.

What's wrong with sex anyway? - it's part of the human experience, like it or not. Most cultures have figured that one out by now. I don't understand the problem. If I find something repulsive, I just don't look at it. Easy.

First Amendment

[DarkZero (516460)]

So the Supreme Court thinks that "free speech" means "free if the majority of the populace likes it or agrees with it" (community standards). Isn't the First Amendment sort of nullified by a reading like that? If you're not allowed to make a statement or produce an artwork (including photographs) that the general populace doesn't agree with, then your speech isn't really free. It's just allowed or banned under the will of the government, which is the sort of situation that the original constitutional amendments were meant to put a stop to.

Re:First Amendment

[Stonehand (71085)]

If you actually read the law, you'll notice that it uses a Miller-style test for determining "harmful to minors", which requires that a work "taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors".

Hence, picture of the nude Statue of David -- fine. Print of Venus de Milo: fine. Bestiality pictures on basketballs inside a fishtank: hmmm, no.

Re:First Amendment

[peddrenth (575761)]

"free speech" means "free if the majority of the populace likes it or agrees with it"

and more importantly, is video footage of police brutality considered "harmful to minors"?

Is this just an attempt to get the whitehouse.com domain back?

Re:First Amendment

[zpengo (99887)]

So the Supreme Court thinks that "free speech" means "free if the majority of the populace likes it or agrees with it" (community standards). Isn't the First Amendment sort of nullified by a reading like that? If you're not allowed to make a statement or produce an artwork (including photographs) that the general populace doesn't agree with, then your speech isn't really free. It's just allowed or banned under the will of the government, which is the sort of situation that the original constitutional amendments were meant to put a stop to.

Dimwit, it doesn't mean that they agree with what you're saying, it means that each community gets to decide for themselves what is legal and what's not, instead of having Big Brother force it down their throats. The liberals get to be liberals, and the conservatives can be conservatives. If you disagree with the standards of the community in which you leave, you're free to move, but don't expect the government to create laws to pamper your beliefs at the expense of others'.

That's what cracks me up about liberals. You want to defend people's rights, but you want to do it by having one massive tyrannical government declare what each and every place must do, regardless of the individual character of that town, city, or area. What kind of screwed up thought processes lead to those conclusions?

Re:First Amendment

[angst_ridden_hipster (23104)]

it doesn't mean that they agree with what you're saying, it means that each community gets to decide for themselves what is legal and what's not

Which is exactly the issue here. Because the Internet crosses over the boundary of communities, they have to figure out how to apply this to the world-wide community. It has nothing to do with Liberals or Conservatives.

Re:First Amendment

[angst_ridden_hipster (23104)]

That's not speech.

While the Courts have never given a robust definition of what constitutes "speech" (to my knowledge), all of the case law regards spoken/recorded, written, or representational works. Firing a rifle does not fit into the rubric.

You're perfectly within your rights to go and tell those people that you don't like them.

The issue isn't child porn and its (il)legality. In fact, it has nothing to do with child porn at all. It's all about the standards which are used to determine what qualifies as offensive speech.

So where do we find this "community"...

[Godeke (32895)]

It's interesting to see how poorly understood the Internet is to the justices. The terminology is the same as if they were using "local community standards" to determine if a strip club should be allowed. That works when you are talking about a place with physical presence, but are we now going to apply the "local community standards" of some enclave of rich religious puritans to every internet user? I'm a member of a church who's "community standards" would reject most PG-13 movies (and in fact has specially edited versions of popular movies made to prevent the members from fleeing to R rated movies and "corrupting" themselves).

Let's hope that subjecting those who did not agree to a strict "community standard" themselves to the harshest that can be found turns this around...

Re:So where do we find this "community"...

[shren (134692)]

Ick. Which church?

How many seconds were left in The Matrix?

Re:So where do we find this "community"...

[Seth Finkelstein (90154)]

t's interesting to see how poorly understood the Internet is to the justices.

I don't think the problem is that they didn't understand. I think the problem is that they didn't care:

While JUSTICE KENNEDY and JUSTICE STEVENS question the applicability of this Courtís community standards jurisprudence to the Internet, we do not believe that the medium's "unique characteristics" justify adopting a different approach than that set forth in Hamling and Sable. ... If a publisher chooses to send its material into a particular community, this Courtís jurisprudence teaches that it is the publisherís responsibility to abide by that community's standards. The publisher's burden does not change simply because it decides to distribute its material to every com- munity in the Nation. See Sable, supra, at 125n126. Nor does it change because the publisher may wish to speak only to those in a "community where avant garde culture is the norm," post, at 6 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment), but nonetheless utilizes a medium that transmits its speech from coast to coast. If a publisher wishes for its material to be judged only by the standards of particular communities, then it need only take the simple step of utilizing a medium that enables it to target the release of its material into those communities.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

Re:So where do we find this "community"...

[swb (14022)]

Using the community standard, does it give any commmunity the ability to find internet content objectionable regardless of geography?

Say a server hosted in LA has porn on it and my community in Minnesota finds it objectionable. The only way for us to get the data on the server is to connect up there -- the server's ISP doesn't have any connectivity in our community so the data isn't even "running through" us on its way to somewhere else.

Why couldn't the same rules then apply to physical-world things? Ie, why couldn't we find that when we get on a plane and fly to LA that there are clubs there we find objectionable? I mean, we have to fetch the data from the server just like we have to fetch the experience.

Allowing someone to object to something using their community's standards when the thing thing isn't in their community *except when they go get it* seems kind of hard to understand.

Misleading headline... big suprise

[_LORAX_ (4790)]

Held:COPAs reliance on community standards to identify what material is harmful to minors does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment purposes. The Court, however, expresses no view as to whether COPA suffers from substantial overbreadth for reasons other than its use of community standards, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, or whether the statute survives strict scrutiny. Prudence dictates allowing the Third Circuit to first examine these difficult issues. Because petitioner did not ask to have the preliminary injunction vacated, and because this Court could not do so without addressing matters the Third Circuit has yet to consider, the Government remains enjoined from enforcing COPA absent further action by the lower courts. P. 22.

Basicly the supreme court ruled against the ACLU's argument that the "community standards" were unconstitutional, but left the rest up to the lower coutrs to decide. This may bounce back to the supreme court at a later date, but for now it's been repremanded back to the federal circuit.

The injunction is still in place which means that the law cannot be enforced currently.

Why it's a slippery slope

[b.foster (543648)]

Readers of the Congressional Register will recognize the following future threats to free speech and free commerce online, which had been held up in committee until the Supreme Court ruled on the COPA:

• H.R. 4239, which makes it a felony to distribute any kind of sexually explicit material to a user who does not register with a government-sanctioned age verification service (like AdultCheck).
• H.R. 4551, which outlaws the creation and distribution of "electronic burglary devices" such as system cracking scripts and port scanners.
• H.R. 4608, which taxes all sales of goods over the internet that originate overseas.
• H.R. 4277, which requires all ISPs to keep 6 months of records of all user activity and give law enforcement access to the records without a court order.

The list goes on. Naturally most of these will never become law, but statistically at least a few are likely to pass and make the internet that much more repressive. It's high time to vote Libertarian [lp.org] and try to preserve the few remaining liberties we actually have in this country.

Re:Why it's a slippery slope

[wannabe (90895)]

Although it is high time to vote Libertarian, I am of the firm belief that it is time for people to stand up and ask WTF?

All of the above bills have the prefix HR meaning House of Representatives (for those not in the know). This means that a Representative sponsored them. This is not a Senator of whom there are 2 in every state.

What needs to be done is to call what ever individual has been elected in your district and arrange a meeting about this. When they decide to marginalize you, organize the community. Run against them. Make them realize, as well as all the others, that the time to sell out our liberty is over and it will not stand.

Re:Why it's a slippery slope

[mrroach (164090)]

Umm, either I am completely mistaken, or this is a bunch of FUD. I did google searches on each of these bills, and this is what I found:

HR 4239 [house.gov] To revise the banking and bankruptcy insolvency
laws with respect to the termination and netting of financial contracts

HR 4551 [house.gov] : To repeal the 1993 increase in tax on Social Security benefits and to develop and apply a Consumer Price Index that accurately reflects the cost-of-living for older Americans who receive Social Security benefits under title II of the Social Security Act.

HR 4608 [loc.gov]To designate the United States courthouse located at 220 West Depot Street in Greeneville, Tennessee, as the "James H. Quillen United States Courthouse".To designate the United States courthouse located at 220 West Depot Street in Greeneville, Tennessee, as the "James H. Quillen United States Courthouse".

HR 4277 [ftc.gov]: the "Quality Health-care Coalition Act of 1998"

Like I say, I may be mistaken, maybe they don't use unique ID's for the bill numbers, but my skeptic alert went off when I read this post that contained zero links to any reputable site.

Chilling effect

[markwelch (553433)]

It was disappointing that the Court did not rule on what "community" can be used to measure the community standards.

In particular, we know that there have been strategic efforts to prosecute purveyors of "adult" materials in the "least tolerant" communities.

Since it is technically impossible to know what community a web visitor is in (thanks to AOL and other proxy servers), the end result is simple: nobody can offer ANY "adult" materials to anyone in the world, unless those materials are acceptable under the community standards of the most conservative community in the United States.

The real goal, of course, is not to prosecute violations of this law -- it is to create a system that strongly deters creation or distribution of ANY adult content online. By imposing an impossible standard to prevent access by minors, the law effectively closes off access to everyone.

It would be interesting to see an analysis of the current minimum costs associated with starting an adult business, even ignoring the cost of legal advice and any costs associated with harassment by local law enforcement. I suspect the costs are quite high, especially for a firm producing original content. The bottom line, in my view, is that our government is imposing the moral views of a few to strongly discourage and often prevent access to adult materials wanted by the majority.

Re:Chilling effect

[Seth Finkelstein (90154)]

The real goal, of course, is not to prosecute violations of this law -- it is to create a system that strongly deters creation or distribution of ANY adult content online. By imposing an impossible standard to prevent access by minors, the law effectively closes off access to everyone.

This is often said. But both the CDA and this decision are clear that, paradoxically, outright commercial pornographers have affirmative defenses in the law. It's one of the ironies of this whole debate. Out-and-out professional sex sites are SAFE FROM THE LAW, because they use credit cards. It's the amateurs, the people who give it away to everyone, who are subject to prosecution:

Like the CDA, COPA also provides affirmative defenses to those subject to prosecution under the statute. An individual may qualify for a defense if he, 'in good faith, has restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to minors: (A) by requiring the use of a credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number; (B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age; or (C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology.'

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

Why is everyone talking about child porn?

[kfg (145172)]

The COPA has nothing to do with child porn. It restricts *adult* material that *may* be viewed by a minor. In other words, " dirty pictures."

By applying " community standards" bikini pinups could be all that is needed to invoke prosecution under COPA.

It's the disturbing sort of law that makes it illegal to distribute the sort of material it's perfectly legal for the intended recipient to possess, even under the standards of the supposed "community."

KFG

Re:Why is everyone talking about child porn?

[Stonehand (71085)]

Not distribute -- sell. COPA specifically applies to communication for commercial purposes. Posting free porn, for instance, wouldn't fall under COPA unless it's something like advertising/teasers for a pay service, or otherwise part of a for-profit enterprise like getting banner clicks.

Also, it's an affirmative defense if the seller, in good faith, restricts access to minors by, say, credit card age verification, or the various adult-checking services. If the minor stole an adult's credit card and uses it to pass the check, the vendor doesn't get nailed for a COPA violation as long as it's still operating in good faith.

Re:Why is everyone talking about child porn?

[arkanes (521690)]

courts have a way of considering almost anything to be commercial when they want it to be - even the hint of the intent to make money off of it sometime in future seems to work.

On another note, there seems to be some sort of contradiction - if you're offering it for sale over the internet, then you, must be using either a credit card or an online pay service such as paypal. In either case, whoever is getting your porn therefore hase submitted to some sort of identity check.

Therefore, they will either a) not accept good faith defenses or b) prosecute sites that offer "free" porn or c) both.

elections and judges

[ghostlibrary (450718)]

So how do we contribute to Judge Steven's election campaign, and get rid of the other 8?

Oh, wait, they're appointed. Rats. His point on how this means sites would have to cater to the least permissive denominator is darn insightful.

Clearly, in most cases there's going to be a lag between internet-saavy judges and reality, even moreso with politicians (as politicians cycle through quicker than high-level justices).

We're staying open

[NineNine (235196)]

Irregardless what the gov't decides what is best for their peasants, we're staying free and open until our servers are smashed to bits by military personnel. We'll move offshore if need be. Long live free speech. Long live free porn.

Stevens' dissent

[wytcld (179112)]

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said community standards would not work in cyberspace. He said "the community that wishes to live without certain material not only rids itself, but the entire Internet of the offending speech."

He said speech is effectively prohibited whenever the least tolerant communities find it harmful to minors.

Stevens expressed concern the law could cover advertisements, online magazines, bulletin boards, chat rooms, stock photo galleries, Web diaries and a variety of illustrations encompassing a vast number of messages.

So we can talk freely only with people whose identities we can prove we have verified. And anything I might suggest (involving a Coke can and a Justice) here could land me and/or the proprietors in jail because some kid might read this in a jurisdiction where it's only considered proper to use Pepsi, and perhaps even one so backwards that only bottles are acceptible.

BTW, don't we now know that the great trove of old paintings of eroticized, crucified saints and Jesus lead directly to sexual abuse of children by priests? Should these images, too dangerous even for priests, be allowed before children in any context?

This Court should be impeached for its conduct in the last election. Then we need a tolerable president to appoint a new one.
___

"Standards of the adult community as a whole"

[mttlg (174815)]

You've got to love legal ambiguity used to clarify legal ambiguity:

jurors will not consider the community standards of any particular geographic area, but rather will be "instructed to consider the standards of the adult community as a whole, without geographic specification."

Yeah, that will work. When exactly is the entire adult community getting together to write up these standards? I know I haven't gotten my invitation yet. If this law survives long enough to be enforced (which it probably won't, due to the countless other possible challenges), the jurors on these trials are going to have lots of fun. "Ok, heads it is harmful to kids, tails it isn't..."

Of course, the courts have a long history of upholding community standards requirements in cases where there is no specific community to use as a standard, so this shouldn't be surprising. The major flaw in all of this, regardless of community, is that what is considered to be harmful to children and what actually is harmful to children aren't usually the same, and this varies from child to child.

Too bad we can't just make parents responsible for raising their kids... Oh, right, I forgot that porn sites automatically pop up whenever a parent's back is turned, completely unrequested by the kid at the computer. And porn sites hypnotize kids and force them to look at explicit material whether they want to or not, permanently corrupting them no matter what the parents do.

Re:"Standards of the adult community as a whole"

[gillbates (106458)]

Oh, right, I forgot that porn sites automatically pop up whenever a parent's back is turned, completely unrequested by the kid at the computer.And porn sites hypnotize kids and force them to look at explicit material whether they want to or not, permanently corrupting them no matter what the parents do.

Obviously, you've never done a search for "free movies" on google. I've watched my 11 year old brother stumble across porn sites while searching for video games on the net. Pornographers explicitly design their pages to be found by children - they include keywords like "free games" and "free movies" which have absolutely nothing to do with the content they display. Furthermore, the pages are loaded with annoying popups that just won't go away. No, the kid isn't technically hypnotized, but curiosity is a strange and powerful thing - especially for children, who often lack both discretion and willpower. Even if a child has enough willpower to hit the back button, 30 seconds later, another site will popup, and this process goes on until the kid shuts down the browser. The notion that parents can control what their children see on the computer while surfing the web is intrinsically naive. Even an innocent interest in cars or video games can inadvertently lead a child to a porn site.

Re:"Standards of the adult community as a whole"

[lkaos (187507)]

Pornographers explicitly design their pages to be found by children - they include keywords like "free games" and "free movies" which have absolutely nothing to do with the content they display.

Now, let's assume for a moment that this is true. Why in the world would a "pornographer" design a site to be accessed by children? Pornographer's have to pay for bandwidth, and children do not possess credit cards and therefore, cannot make any online purchases. Therefore, you are stating that a pornographer would go out of his or her way and actually pay to have children see pornography even though they stand to gain nothing finically from the transaction.

Let me address the obvious, "Hook them while their young argument too." To attract children who are we'll say, 13-15, a pornographer would have to hope to instill a desire to see porn in the child for the next 3-5 years! Even then, chances are an 18 is not going to have much as far as credit cards are concerned.

Did you ever think that pornographers who use keywords like "free games" and "free movies" are going after adults who are searching for those items? I fail to see why a pornographer would explicitly try and attract children to their site. In fact, most pornographers try to dissuade children from accessing their sites or at least, give that appearance in order to appease the masses.

At any rate, I would also like to ask you to quote 1 peer-reviewed study that shows harm caused to children by exposure to pornographic material.

Regardless of whether you agree with the material (or if you think it is moral), the only time the government has the ability to regulate expressions of speech is when they are proven to directly cause harm to the community. The fact is that their does not exist a single scientific study to show this.

That is why "community-standards" are such a dangerous thing since this amounts to "majority-standard." The only standard that should be regarded by the government is objective-standard.

Oh yeah, but then we would actually live in a free country...

Justice Stevens, dissent, community standards

[Seth Finkelstein (90154)]

This is worth pondering, from Justice Stevens' dissent:

In the context of most other media, using community standards to differentiate between permissible and im- permissible speech has two virtues. As mentioned above, community standards originally served as a shield to protect speakers from the least tolerant members of society. By aggregating values at the community level, the Miller test eliminated the outliers at both ends of the spectrum and provided some predictability as to what constitutes obscene speech. But community standards also serve as a shield to protect audience members, by allowing people to self-sort based on their preferences. Those who abhor and those who tolerate sexually explicit speech can seek out like-minded people and settle in communities that share their views on what is acceptable for themselves and their children. This sorting mechanism, however, does not exist in cyberspace; the audience cannot self-segregate. As a result, in the context of the Internet this shield also becomes a sword, because the community that wishes to live without certain material not only rids itself, but the entire Internet of the offending speech.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

What has been the harm so far?

[VValdo (10446)]

It occurred to me that since the early 1990s the Internet has been fairly liberal as far as this law is concerned. The status quo is an "unregulated" Internet.

My question-- is there any evidence of damage to children that has resulted over the past ten years?

If there were millions of severly damaged/warped/traumatized American children suffering from unrestricted Internet access, this law might make sense. But I've never heard of anything like that. Do kids complain about too much material inappropriate for them? How about kids in other less-restrictive countries than the US?

In short, what scientific justification is there for this law? Maybe there is clear evidence of harm (?), but if not, could a lack of negative effects on minors in the last ten years be an argument against this bill?

W

Re:A Good Thing

[DarkZero (516460)]

This isn't about kiddie porn. It's about run-of-the-mill porn, featuring adults, which could possibly be VIEWED by children on the internet.

Re:A Good Thing

[rosewood (99925)]

Because they are children and if you dont understand this then you have serious maturity issues that need to be addressed and I suggest you use the time you have devoted to /. posting to rectifing this situation.

Re:A Good Thing

[goldspider (445116)]

That is of course correct. But then it is also correct that back then people weren't expected to live very far into their 30's. 13 was considered middle-aged.

And decidedly a 13 year old today is far less mentally and emotionally mature than they were back then... simply because back then they had to grow up fast.

The simple fact is that today children are far less capable of dealing with the physical and emotional burdens of a sexual relationship and child-rearing, and kids shouldn't have to be. Let them be kids for crying out loud!

Re:A Good Thing

[Kintanon (65528)]

And decidedly a 13 year old today is far less mentally and emotionally mature than they were back then... simply because back then they had to grow up fast.

The simple fact is that today children are far less capable of dealing with the physical and emotional burdens of a sexual relationship and child-rearing, and kids shouldn't have to be. Let them be kids for crying out loud!



Of course, this sucks ass for the kids since they are maturing physically much faster than the were a hundred years ago. There are girls as young as 8 years old developing breasts and going through puberty. Part of the blame rests with the meat heavy, hormone rich diet they consume. So we're breeding generations of children that become interested in sex much earlier than they used to, but are being taught far less about sex than they once were. So maybe you SHOULD teach your 9 year old about sex, since she looks like a 15 year old, so all of the 17 year old guys are going to be hitting on her... Might be a good idea if she knows what they mean when they want to play "doctor"....

Kintanon

MYTH!!!

[geekoid (135745)]

Clearly, you have no idea what "average age" means. sheesh.
Average age was 30 because of a high infant mortality rate! if you calculate average age based from the age of five, are average age has only increase 4-5 years!
a 13 year old has the same "mental capacity" now as they had 5000 years ago!
yes, I know i'm exclaiming a lot! it my attempt to get people to buy a clue!

Re:First COPA post

[peddrenth (575761)]

So just to check: I can still post whatever pictures I like here in the UK, so long as they're legal under UK law?

What about if I holiday in America? Will I get kidnapped like Skylarov did?

It's a sad day when only companies with credit-card processing equipment are allowed the freedom of the press.

Re:First COPA post

[Stonehand (71085)]

FYI, COPA specifies "...in interstate or foreign commerce", so yes, I think you'd still potentially be held liable if the law is upheld in the end.

Re:not very troubling?

[jonnythan (79727)]

Actually, you're wrong.

The rights ARE presumed, and then Congress is forbidden from abridging them.

Reread the Constitution ;)

Re:not very troubling?

[kfg (145172)]

The single largest problem with your argument is that the constitution itself * explicitly * states that rights are *not* granted but are presumed.

In fact, this is the single fundamental point at the center of all American law and politics and if you don't understand that you understand nothing of our legal society.

What's more, the constitution is document that not only reserves *all* rights to the people but exists almost entirely to define the *restrictions* on the action of the government, *not* the people!

KFG

Re:not very troubling?

[Kintanon (65528)]

Oh I see... But adults are Ok to sacrifice since they are worthless globs of matter. As opposed to the precious and angelic children, right?
Children are easily replaceable, mostly useless, and quit annoying. Not to mention completely selfish by default. Don't go preaching about how 'precious' children are. I'm against underage pornography, but not because I give a flying fuck about the kids specifically. I don't like to see anyone hurt, be they child or adult. I'm also against exploitave adult pornography where the subject is not fully willing to participate. There should be no lesser or greater amount of civil rights extended to children than adults.

Kintanon

Re:not very troubling?

[symbolic (11752)]

You don't have to sacrifice them. Training them so that they know what to do once they get there is a more effective option, since it's something they can use their entire lives.

Re:not very troubling?

[RailGunner (554645)]

First, our right to speech is granted (i.e., it is not presumed) by the Constitution

Actually, the Constitution does not grant anyone any rights, nor was it ever intended to. The U.S. Constitution was written to limit the ability of the Government to infringe on your rights. The concept of your rights is not debatable, you have certain unalienable rights.

Therefore, this speech is colored by the other contents of the Constitution, including the possibility of limiting "Such Speach as may be Found Hurtful to the Citizens of the Nation." I think this falls into the "hurtful" category pretty clearly. I'm not going to argue against this. Our children are too precious to sacrifice them at the altar of free speech.

I'm not going to argue that exposing kids to hardcore pr0n isn't harmful... it is. However, I am going to argue that it's dangerous ground when we try to "insulate" kids from the realities of the world via legislation. Where do you draw the line of what is acceptable? Is non-sexual nudity OK?

I feel the real issue of contention is this: It's not the Government's business what sites my children view. It's *MY* business, and as a parent it becomes my job to filter what my kids see on the Net, on TV, in games, at the movies, etc.

It doesn't take a village to raise a child, or government, it takes parents who care.

Re:not very troubling?

[rossz (67331)]

our right to speech is granted (i.e., it is not presumed) by the Constitution

You could not be more wrong. The Bill of Rights reiterates some of the rights you are born with. It does not give you those rights. Those rights can not be taken away. The Constitution did not even mention those rights origially. They were added after the fact because of great concern about government abuse (those guys were pretty damn smart, in my opinion, and correctly guessed the future).

Even if Congress tried to abolish the Constitution, we would still have those rights. We would also have a civil war.

Re:COPA, DMCA and beyond

[ChazeFroy (51595)]

Actually it's COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act [ftc.gov], not COPA.

Re:Freedom of Speech: 0 Censors: 1

[Samurai_DoucheBag (555099)]

Thats a great post. I should be allowed to wnjoy whatever I want as long as Im not hurting anyone else or their right to do the same. I like porn, I watch porn, I spank to porn, I support the porn industry and hell, maybe someday I can actually be in a porn movie. The fact is...I just cant stand some moral majority telling me what to do. Like I said, if theres no harm, then theres no foul.