Supreme Court Rules on Challenge to COPA 298
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).
A Good Thing (Score:0, Insightful)
For those of you too lazy or ignorant... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
not very troubling? (Score:1, Insightful)
Before you mod me down, read what I have to say. True, it deviates from the standard sheepbot formula, but I'm trying to reason through this objectively.
First, our right to speech is granted (i.e., it is not presumed) by the Constitution, a document that has weathered the test of time and provided the foundation for the civilized modern world. 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.
Re:First COPA post (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
First Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Send 'em back to school (Score:2, Insightful)
At best common justice is barbaric "eye for an eye" justice.
So where do we find this "community"... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:For those of you too lazy or ignorant... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:not very troubling? (Score:3, Insightful)
The rights ARE presumed, and then Congress is forbidden from abridging them.
Reread the Constitution
Re:not very troubling? (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Chilling effect (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Freedom of Speech: 0 Censors: 1 (Score:2, Insightful)
Stevens' dissent (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
___
Re:"Standards of the adult community as a whole" (Score:3, Insightful)
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" (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
What has been the harm so far? (Score:3, Insightful)
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