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).
Re:A Good Thing (Score:1, Interesting)
What makes kiddie porn worse than any other kind of porn? A few centuries ago it was commonplace to marry 13 year old girls and have children with them and look where it got us. Alexander the Great was a 16 years old emperor.
Misleading headline... big suprise (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Send 'em back to school (Score:2, Interesting)
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:not very troubling? (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Send 'em back to school (Score:1, Interesting)
This is not a free speech issue, either, because this bill restricts the access to minors - not adults. An adult can still view all of the porn he wants. What this bill attempts to do is to support those parents who don't want their children to view porn; nothing more. Nothing in the bill's language prevents parents from downloading explicit images and showing them to their children.
What I find particularly insulting is that this is being framed as a free speech issue - it's not. Rather, the issue is whether or not the state has the authority to protect children, which it does, just as it has the authority to protect adults. Since children need more protection than adults, this bill is appropriate.
.sex I'll say it again. (Score:2, Interesting)
Parents/communities can then block out .sex access.
I'd also go one step further and make it illegal for sending unsolicited mail that includes sexual/adult references/images/links. I can't believe that it's legal for these sex spammers to send links like this to email accounts that might be used by children.
Justice Stevens, dissent, community standards (Score:3, Interesting)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]