Slashdot Log In
Judge Strikes Down COPA, 1998 Online Porn Law
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Mar 22, 2007 09:52 AM
from the one-for-free-speech dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Supreme Court Rules on Challenge to COPA 298 comments
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).
[+]
Technology: Google Avoids Surrendering Search Info 226 comments
Mercury News has details of a San Francisco judge's decision that Google should give the DoJ some details on its search engine, but is not required to turn over records to the government. From the article: "McElvain emphasized the study would be more meaningful if it included search requests processed by Google, which by some estimates fields nearly half of all online queries in the United States. Ware concurred with the Justice Department on that point, writing in his order that 'the government's study may be significantly hampered if it did not have access to some information from the most often used search engine.' But Ware said the government didn't clearly explain why it needed a list of search requests to conduct its study, prompting him to conclude the Web site addresses would be adequate." Reaction to the news is available on the Google Blog.
[+]
COPA Suffers Yet Another Court Defeat 322 comments
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wrote the first available internet filter for windows 3.1 The Internet Filter [internetfilter.com] specifically because it is the parent's responsibility to decide what their children should and should not see, not the government's responsibility.
--jeffk++
Parent
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:4, Funny)
Filtering is Power over another [internetfilter.com]
--jeffk++
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure you're not confusing COPA with COPPA? Both can apply to forums, but COPPA is a more constant point, requiring that forum admins collect parental permission from potential users age 12 or under.
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
When did protecting Constitutional rights become being a dictator? This is EXACTLY his job.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, that's it. Censor CNN!!
Parent
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seemed to work pretty good to me, I turned out well.
Parent
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only reason I can think of, is the non-realistic behaviors.
Imagine you were a 12-year-old boy, having no experience with real-world women, except through porn. You might learn:
Not that all of these things don't have a place in healthy fantasies, but you need enough real-world experience to know where this differs from reality. Even if these kinds of ideas aren't learned overtly, they still could color a person's thinking if exposed to them enough in formative years.
Parent
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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," wrote Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. I'm not sure where I sit on this law, but this seems like an odd reason to strike it down, since children aren't given the same rights as adults in our society. The most obvious example of this is the right to vote. This comment seems to be out of line with the rest of the opinion.
If you take away the rights of adults today there will be none for minors to inherit tomorrow.
.
Parent
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:4, Interesting)
While I don't (yet) have a position on the disenfranchisement of felons in the United States, I'm not sure if your argument really sways me either way.
Summary: lots of people are convicted felons.
I think that's kind of the idea -- disenfranchisement is basically the removal of citizenship.
The former half of this is part of a point, but again, I think that's kind of the idea.
By here, you begin to expand on your main idea, but then your argument ends.
"Disenfranchisement" -- kicking people out -- as punishment has been around forever. The English sent people to Australia (and even America, IIRC). Pirates maroon. We remove their rights as citizens. This doesn't make it good, just tested. I assume that you understand the reasons behind the policy in general.
Your argument seems to be that there are so many felons at this point, we might as well just let them back into citizenship. This is a non sequitur; why should it matter how many felons there are, or how many are minorities, etc.? The reason that a felon is disenfranchised is to remove them from society -- I'm sure the framers would have sent people to some uninhabited area if they could (the wild west, for instance). A few more felons wouldn't have made much difference.
Perhaps it's the permanent disenfranchisement that bothers you. You know, that bothers me a bit, too.
tl;dr: Re-word your argument.
Parent
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
Prison, and punishment in general is not about all about rehabilitation. Other important reasons for punishing law breakers include, but are not limited to, incapacitation, general and specific deterrence, and good old fashioned punishment.
The measure of a persons punishment should consider much much more than the person's current rehabibility status.
A couple of examples:
A bum breaks a window because it gets really cold in Chicago in the winter - he'd rather face the punishment than freeze to death. Sure there may be better ways to stay warm, and he may have chosen unwisely, but given similar circumstances in the future he'd likely do the same thing. Do we lock him up forever for breaking a window - or execute him as you suggest?
I get pulled over for speeding - 60 in a 55 zone, and pay my fine. Three months later I get pulled over again in the same spot again doing 60. Clearly I haven't been rehabilitated of my wanton need for speed. How do you deal with me?
A severely mentally ill person is caught running around your local park naked. Rehab is impossible because there are no known treatments for his condition. Numerous experts testify that in the future he may cause more nuisance crimes, but he is in no way a danger to himself or others. Do we jail him? Is permanent civil commitment a better option? Do we execute all mentally handicap persons? What if is mother testifies that she takes care of him, and she foolishly left the back door unlocked allowing the streaker to escape. She vows that she will be more diligent - and points out that nothing like this has ever happened before. She also makes the excellent point that he will certainly be better cared for at her home than in a state institution. She unfortunately can't guarantee another event like this will never happen again - and as was previously mentioned the man certainly isn't rehabilitated.
Parent
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lending, housing, employment, education, clearance, (lack of) privacy, forfeiture of rights, mandatory registration, classing and suppression of political power.
There's a full array of law out there to make sure these people remain as criminal as possible in their behavior once released. Don't you worry about that. No, sir. And they'll stay away from you out of pure respect. Sure they will.
Parent
Re:A step in the right direction. (Score:4, Informative)
At least one attempt at getting a law (the DMCA) struck down prior to a citizen being charged was dismissed because, in the judge's eyes, said citizen wasn't then under threat of being charged. As I recall, that had to do with some academic researcher whose research was made illegal, or at least part of a gray area, by the DMCA.
Parent
bout time (Score:5, Insightful)
Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Community standards are not a good way to police a country that promises liberty and justice for all.
Bush missed! (Score:4, Funny)
Quote FTA (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Keisler then pointed at a child in the back of the the court playing a PSP and continued, "I mean, it's not like I have time to watch this brat."
-Rick
And I would like to say that... (Score:3, Funny)
Enter Mrs. Broflovski (Score:4, Funny)
A lot has to change to make parents responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:A lot has to change to make parents responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
For a LOT of families, that second income is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. Mortgage payments are higher than they've ever been. Gas prices are higher than they've ever been. Work for a company that doesn't provide insurance? Insurance prices are ASTRONOMICALLY high.
Throw a couple of kids into the mix, and anyone at or below the "lower-middle-class" income bracket is struggling, big-time.
Yes, a lot of those families probably don't manage their money particularly well. But even if they did, they probably wouldn't be saving much. They'd still live paycheck-to-paycheck, they just wouldn't be going into debt every month to pay bills.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A lot has to change to make parents responsible (Score:4, Insightful)
Over the last 30 years, both partners have started working. At the beginning of this, the two worker partnerships brought in a very good sum, comparatively.
So, it became the thing to do, as everyone wanted to get the 'extras'. And as more money was available within limited segments (read the housing market), the prices rose to the point that the new double incomes would be able to support.
Childcare services were now more in demand, which meant the prices were able to inflate commensurately too.
So, in effect, what we have now is more or less the same quality of life overall that was available a generation ago, except it now requires two partners to be working to maintain that standard, rather than one.
The option to have one partner working has more or less vanished, unless you're really willing to cut corners.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people are unwilling or incapable of changing their lifestyle to provide a decent home for their kids. It seems that most parents are completely unwilling to giv
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, when my parents didn't have money, they didn't go in debt to buy nonessentials. (If you were POOR, you lived cheap and weren't ashamed of it.)
They taught us by example and explanation that if it was not food/clothing/shelter/EDUCATION you didn't need it. They also taught us that if you
Re:A lot has to change to make parents responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:A lot has to change to make parents responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
Wages are higher then they have ever been, and more unnecessary luxuries are deemed as "necessary" than ever before. Blah blah blah. How about using real data? Raw numbers are irrelevant. you need to compare the indices to get a real picture.
Yes, a lot of those families probably don't manage their money particularly well. But even if they did, they probably wouldn't be saving much. They'd still live paycheck-to-paycheck, they just wouldn't be going into debt every month to pay bills.
You are so wrong and your assertion is a prime example of what is wrong. Congratulations you are perpetuating the problem.
Fact is most people, including families, can save a lot of money by paying attention and separating needs from wants, then taking a hard look. For example, take the young couple who become parents. What is the "mainstream" route for them? both are to work so they can have two cars, cable or satellite, plenty of toys for the grown ups, buy formula and diapers. But what really happens? What is really needed? First, the secondary income (hers or his, usually hers) is dwindled away by the cost of childcare and additional taxes. For most people I've dealt with the net "loss" in income from mom staying home is very minor, and more than a third see a net increase in monthly cash flow. That job mom has making 1000/month is usually more like 150 after taking into account the cost of having the job such as transportation (including a second car and the accompanying payments and insurance), childcare, etc..
Next we turn to the "cost of the child" beyond babysitting. Let us start with diapering. Most people lament the high cost of disposables. And rightly so. Disposable diapers are expensive as hell. Cloth diapers and a washing machine are much cheaper. Now I know many of you are having this image of a sheet of fabric held together by "safety pins". This is not the state of cloth diapering today, nor has it been for a decade. Today's cloth diapers are actually easier than disposables to use. A simple "pickle bucket" setup and a good washing machine will ensure that you don't have this stench about the house. If that isn't enough, the cloth diapered children are less cranky due to less irritation, and healthier due to not having chemicals applied to their nether regions that have been banned from feminine hygiene products for toxicity reasons. Using cloth diapers for the first year alone will save over two thousand dollars on average - including the cost of washing them.
Now we turn to the other high cost of young children: formula. Again, by taking the natural route you can save thousands. In addition the children are healthier and happier (by not being as cranky and irritable). Breastfeeding is also very convenient for the parents as well. And while on this subject news flash: a separate nursery for the new baby with beds, changing tables, etc. is also entirely unnecessary. Another several thousand dollars you don't need to spend. Baby should sleep with mom and dad for the first year or so. Don't worry dad, if mom is breastfeeding you'll still sleep well -usually better even.
I've done the mainstream route as well as the route listed above. I can personally vouch for over 5500 in savings for the above route over the "standard" of baby getting room with all manner of furniture, bottles, formula, disposable diapers, etc.. For one child, first year, not counting the unnecessary daily childcare costs. Yet all this is considered "absolutely necessary" today, and it isn't. Buying cotton clothing for your young children (birth through at least 3-4) instead of the more expensive polyester clothing will keep you from spending on "fad" clothing that is really unnecessary. honestly, your 6 month old doesn't care what
Parent
No one REQUIRES two incomes (Score:3, Insightful)
In the US, we have to have everything now, we can not wait for it to go on sale, and we deffiently can't wait to save up money to buy the product. I guess that is why the US has a nega [cbsnews.com]
Good by to a crud law. (Score:5, Informative)
"The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law."
Move their operations offshore?? We see how that worked for the casinos, They will get you when changing plains. :
How about move it offshore, Move out of the country, and NEVER set foot on US soil again! A hard thing to do in these times. Next you know the US will divert plains and instruct them to land on US soil, just to arrest some one.
Oh well, welcome to the Land of the Free and home of the Brave....
Please note that the above statement predates the current laws restricting your freedom of speech, Freedom of the press and freedom to assemble(1). The restrictions on gun ownership(2), The no-knock warrants (4), Holding people with out a trial outside of the country (5,6), Setting bail above the amount a person can make in there lifetime (7), and the loss of amendments 9 and 10 after the civil war. But you are free to excersize you 3rd amendment right! "Amendment #3 No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Oh, and as for the Brave part. You can not be brave and defend your self with deadly force unless you have first tried to run away and hide. If there is no where to run, then you can be brave and defend your self.
I am all for a constitutional Tea party to show that the Americans have not lost the spirit of what was started, Just this time we should sink cigarette trucks! The Tax on them is through the roof! The government makes more from a pack of cigarettes than the cigarette companies do!
Ok, I am going to put away my soap box and get back to work.
Re:Good by to a crud law. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Good by to a crud law. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bravery == Saving Lives
Nice sophomoric false dichotomy you've got going on there. Of course you know that, and you're just trolling.
Even so... do you really find it brave to stand there while the thug you're lecturing does something irrational, like not listening to your well considered logic about how his life has gone astray and how much happier he'd be if he didn't actually, just now, rape your wife? Is your wife being brave, or cowardly, if she just lies there and takes i
Old quote (Score:5, Informative)
Thank God for separation of powers... (Score:3, Interesting)
The legal system in this country is pretty messed up, riddled with inefficies and outright injustices. But it still does some things right. =)
Parents ARE The Sum of Responsibility for Kids (Score:3, Insightful)
Nicccce (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't this a concept. That those charged in the protection and upbringing of children should take care of these things, and leave our personal freedoms alone. Who is this judge, and someone give him a promotion and a raise for using common sense and some foresight.
I liked this as well: which they will with age inherit fully
Gives some real insight into the Protect the Children mentality. How about we protect what they will value as adults?
"With age" (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, that's right. I forgot about that part of the First Amendment that says that the protections it guarantees are limited to people above a certain age. Can somebody remind me exactly which age group of people it is to whom the Bill of Rights doesn't apply?
Goodbye mod points, but I feel too strongly about this to keep my trap shut...
Re:Props (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of fawning over Google, thank Salon.com and the other sites that sued, and ACLU for helping them.
Parent
Re:finally (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:finally (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, just out of curiosity... if you and, say, 500 of your idealogical or cultural fellows applied for and got a permit to occupy a public street or use a facility of some sort, and held such an event... and then someone else gathered 1000 drum-banging loons you can't stand to march in and shout down the communication you're trying to have between yourself and your 500 friends, would you consider the complete inability to hold the event for which you obtained the permits, paid the fees, etc., to be an example of your first amendment rights being protected? Or would you consider the 1000 people without the permits, who are specifically stepping in to disrupt your activity, to be the ones at fault? Should every peaceful demonstration or political rally really just be a complete shouting and shoving and size-of-signs contest to see who can drown out who? Why is it that some people think that only disruptive and sometimes destructive street antics are valid discourse in a public space, and don't get the irony because their typical idealogical opponents don't consider such amateur theatrics to be actually persuasive, and as such they don't "retaliate" with the same when the roles are reversed?
If your protesting or demonstration group - or, a much larger political organization to which you belong and which holds events that you attend - goes through the right steps to spend a day holding an event on the mall in DC (or wherever), would you consider your rights well looked after if your speeches or performances or other messages were simply disrupted/ended by idiots with giant puppets while the police, who are there to enforce the conditions of the permit that you properly obtained, just stand by and watch your event - and your use of the space you arranged to use - become worthless to you? You can't have it both ways.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)