backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 25 comment(s) - last by eldakka.. on Jul 24 at 4:31 AM

Yet another DOJ challenge ends in failure

A ban on the enforcement of COPA, the Child Online Protection Act, was upheld in the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Tuesday, after agreeing with a lower court’s findings that the law was vague, overly broad, and unconstitutional.

The law, originally passed in 1998, was intended to protect children from objectionable content on the internet – pornography, namely – by forcing site owners to implement verifiable age checks. Critics feared that the law would result in the censorship of a wide variety of material on the internet – anything not suitable for a four-year-old, writes Wiredincluding the aforementioned pornography, as well as sexual health information or any site considered “obscene” by the courts’ principle of “contemporary community standards.”

“The First Amendment provides that ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” reads a passage from the decision (PDF). “COPA criminalizes a category of speech – ‘harmful to minors’ material – that is constitutionally protected for adults. Because COPA is a content-based restriction on protected speech, it is presumptively invalid and the Government bears the burden of showing its constitutionality.”

Part of the courts’ logic found that implementing filters on an individual basis was far more effective than criminalizing offenders. “Unlike COPA, filters permit adults to determine if and when they want to use them and do not subject speakers to criminal or civil penalties,” it wrote.

The challenge pitted the ACLU, acting on behalf of a variety of clients including the Salon.com, online sex magazine Nerve.com, the Sexual Health Network, and UrbanDictionary.com, against the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey.

Shortly after COPA’s passage in 1998, opponents moved quickly to successfully place a ban on enforcement. A federal appeals court upheld that injunction in 1999. A later petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 wound up against the government’s favor, and COPA enforcement remained blocked.

Further government challenges against the ban resurfaced in 2004, 2006, and 2007, and the question once again returned to the U.S. Court of Appeals, resulting with Tuesday’s permanent injunction and a wholesale striking down of the law. At one point, the government subpoenaed search records from Google, Yahoo, and others.

The ACLU lauded the Appellate Court’s 2008 decision as a victory for free speech. “For years the government has been trying to thwart freedom of speech on the Internet, and for years the courts have been finding the attempts unconstitutional,” wrote the ACLU lawyer Chris Hansen in a statement. “The government has no more right to censor the internet than it does books and magazines.”

Officials at the Justice Department said they were less than thrilled, however. “We are disappointed that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Congressional statute designed to protect our children from exposure to sexually explicit material on the internet,” said DoJ spokesman Charles Miller.

The government can, if it chooses to, challenge the decision once again by petitioning the Supreme Court.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

COPPA
By FuzionMonkey on 7/22/2008 9:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
I was hoping this was for COPPA. Its annoying constantly being asked if you are over 13, or were you born before or after xx/xx/xxxx.

I guess its not the same thing.




RE: COPPA
By Some1ne on 7/22/2008 10:32:05 PM , Rating: 3
You mean COPPA and COPA are different? I thought they were the same thing, and someone had just forgotten a 'P'. The people who come up with these acronyms need to start being more creative then.

Regardless, I approve of the courts tearing down pointless laws such as this one. Now if they'd just hurry up and tear down the DMCA and ACTA, we'd be all set.

And lastly:

quote:
The ACLU lauded the Appellate Court’s 2008 decision as a victory against free speech.


Surely you mean a victory for free speech, no?


RE: COPPA
By TomCorelis (blog) on 7/23/2008 12:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, talk about weird typos that escape the eye. Fixed. Thanks!


RE: COPPA
By Polynikes on 7/22/2008 11:02:29 PM , Rating: 4
1/1/1901 is my birthday. :D


RE: COPPA
By jadeskye on 7/23/2008 8:22:37 AM , Rating: 2
lol oldest living person.


RE: COPPA
By glitchc on 7/23/2008 10:05:40 AM , Rating: 2
I prefer 1900 myself.


RE: COPPA
By TomCorelis (blog) on 7/23/2008 12:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
COPA and COPPA are different. From Wikipedia:

COPPA:
quote:
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) is a United States federal law....The act, effective April 21, 2000, applies to the online collection of personal information by persons or entities under U.S. jurisdiction from children under 13 years of age. It details what a website operator must include in a privacy policy, when and how to seek verifiable consent from a parent or guardian, and what responsibilities an operator has to protect children's privacy and safety online including restrictions on the marketing to those under 13.

COPA:
quote:
The Child Online Protection Act[1] (COPA)[2] is a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of protecting minors from harmful sexual material on the Internet. The federal courts have ruled that the law violates the constitutional protection of free speech, and therefore have blocked it from taking effect. Several US states have since passed similar laws.


Also, I believe the big scare wasn't so much the anonymous I-am-over-18/I-am-under-18 checks, but the fact that those checks had to be backed up by an external source -- like a credit card. AVS, anyone?


Why not make parents responsible?
By LyCannon on 7/23/2008 12:16:18 PM , Rating: 5
There is a simple solution to all this:

Parents, get off your butts, learn to use your computer, setup content filtering.

The U.S. government has no right to tell me what my child can or cannot see on the internet, TV, theater, books, magazines, or any medium.

It is the parents responsibility to educate, restrict, and enforce THEIR OWN VIEWS on what is appropriate.




RE: Why not make parents responsible?
By justadadathome on 7/23/2008 12:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
I agree,
But unfortunately, people do not always DO THE RIGHT THING.
That is why we have laws.

Today, Both parents have to work to pay the bills, right?
Many kids live in broken homes, 1 parent.
So, UNFORTUNATELY, may kids are babysat, pacified if you will, by TELEVISION, XBOX 360, PLAYSTATION 3, AND.. the big one.. the INTERNET.
Come see more about all this: http://www.cfcamerica.org
Parents buy their kids Powerful computers, set them up in their rooms, or on wireless, and turn them loose.

The kids are subjected to all the dangers, and filth on the net, UNPROTECTED by filters or any type of monitoring.
Look at statistics: http://cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content...

So, if the Parents are NOT going to monitor, protect their children, and unfortunately, PROTECT adults from lying little sexually active children, then the Government should make laws, Requiring parents to do so.

We have helmet laws, forcing adults to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.

We have Seat Belt laws Forcing adults to wear seatbelts.

Why do we not have laws Forcing parents to protect their children from Online Dangers? And forcing parents to protect Other adults from being lied to and tricked into being arrested for talking about sex to a child, when all the time the adult thought they were talking to another adult.

Think about it. This would solve a LOT of problems.


RE: Why not make parents responsible?
By ICE1966 on 7/23/2008 2:28:08 PM , Rating: 3
very true, it goes back to the parents. My 12 yr old son uses the internet, and you can bet your butt that it gets monitored. I have a program that logs his keystrokes so I can see if he types anything in that I do not approve of. I use content filters on his machine also. He has a user name and password to log on to his computer, and I have his access restricted to the point that he cannot install software with out my admin password. Most parents are to busy working or doing whatever to watch thier childs internet useage. You never allow the government to set standards of what is right or wrong, just look at Roe vs Wade.


RE: Why not make parents responsible?
By wvh on 7/23/2008 9:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
While I laud your involvement, I really do... Do you really run a key logger on your kid son?


RE: Why not make parents responsible?
By ICE1966 on 7/23/2008 10:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well as you know, most young kids are much more computer savy than us older people. I caught him going to a few sex sites, actually by accident kinda. he try going to them and then would delete his cookie file , internet cache files and clear his history. one morning while he was getting ready for school I decided to check his computer, and I checked the history folder to find 4 different enties for sex sites. he was 10 years old when I found this. After that I really tightened up the security on his machine. he admitted to clearing those files, said a friend at school told him how to do it. he knows that the keylogger is on the machine but he does not know how to access it or how to turn it off. I know it sounds somewhat extreme but it has kept him for doing alot things he might do on the computer.

thanks for your kind words, I appreciate it.


By eldakka on 7/24/2008 4:31:39 AM , Rating: 3
While I applaud your pro-active activities to limit what the child can do, I think there are easier and more effective means.

/rant on (generically aimed!)
Rather than going to all that extent, why don't you:
a) don't give the child an account on the computer that has internet access;
b) place the computer in the lounge/dining/family/whatever room where there is always usually an adult present.
c) you log the child onto the computer when it is ok for them to use it while there are parents present, or will often be present, in the room.

Do NOT put a computer that has internet access in the child's bedroom or study or some other area where the parents usually allow the child privacy or significant amounts of undisturbed time.

Only have the computer with internet access in common areas set up in such a way thet the screen is visible by people lounging on the couch watching TV, in the kitchen preparing dinner or some other high traffic area where people are coming and going where suitable adults will likely be hanging out or passing through frequently.

It doesn't matter how tech savy the kids are if they can only use the internet in a public area in the house where the adults can just glance over and see what they are doing...

Do not allow a child to access the internet unsupervised.

Would you allow a 10 year old to walk down to the mall and hang out without at least occasional supervision?

Would you allow them to wander the streets at 10pm at night without some sort of supervision?

Why the internet is treated any differently than a busy, public street or mall at peak hour (or maybe even a red light district..) has always baffled me.


kids are smart
By Soulkeeper on 7/22/2008 10:14:03 PM , Rating: 5
any 10yr old can select "above 13"
these laws do nothing
just wasted tax payer dollars




RE: kids are smart
By onwisconsin on 7/22/2008 10:36:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
just wasted tax payer dollars


What else is new? ;)


RE: kids are smart
By FuzionMonkey on 7/23/2008 12:30:07 AM , Rating: 2
Uh... COPPA isn't COPA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COPPA
= 13 or above
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protecti...
= Unconstitutional

You should try reading the article next time.


I've been saying it should happen for 30 years...
By xphile on 7/22/2008 11:40:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Appeals Court Confirms: COPA Unconstitutional


Now FINALLY that bloody Barry Manilow song is illegal :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copacabana_(song)




By Bladen on 7/23/2008 6:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
What's Lola to do now?


By Aquila76 on 7/23/2008 7:54:26 AM , Rating: 5
She posts in AnandTech's Off-Topic forum.


Do Gooders
By AntiM on 7/23/2008 8:30:17 AM , Rating: 3
Why don't supporters of this law just move to China? There they will be in a censored and filtered paradise.
That the US Government would even be considering such a law is very scary.
From the wording of the law, even the Bible would have to be considered unsuitable for children with it's tales of murder, incest, torture, pestilence, demonically possessed animals... I could keep going. So, for the do-gooders pushing for the passage of this law, be careful what you ask for.




RE: Do Gooders
By cblais19 on 7/23/2008 9:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
Thats a great point, and if the ACLU wanted to mount a publicity campaign they should use that reasoning.


Protecting Our Children from Online Perils
By justadadathome on 7/23/2008 11:41:55 AM , Rating: 2
I am going to say some thing that may upset many people.

Many men are going to jail, for chatting online about sex to kids. Many of these Kids get online and create yahoo, msn, aol instant messenger Accounts and lie about their age. Imagine that.
You think you are talking to a Woman, when in fact the girl is 13 years old.
You get arrested for Online Solicitation of a Minor, branded Sex Offender, Pedophile, Child Predator for the rest of your life.
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT TRUE CHILD PREDATORS.

I think their should be laws, that the internet can only be used by persons under 18 years old, IF, SOFTWARE is installed to protect them.
Parents should be responsible to monitor everything a child does on the net, and held responsible if little Ashley, 13 years old, gets online and lies about here age, to Grown Men, enticing them into sex talk.
Also, many of these kids, are getting Online, no supervision, and posting NUDE photos of themselves on their MySpace, Bebo, and Tagged Websites.
THIS GOES ON BY THE THOUSANDS!
If you think I am wrong, go sign up for MySpace, Make yourself a 13 year old girl, go to google, get some photo of a 13 year old girl, use it in your profile, and make up a name and all.
You will be contacted by a lot of teens, and soon, you will find a lot of naked teens posting their photos.
It is widespread.

Unfortunately, the Internet is a sewer, it needs to be monitored by ALL PARENTS.

If you have a child and you let them on the net, without TOTALLY STRICT MONITORING OF EVERYTHING THEY DO, shame on you, you need to be arrested for neglect.




By mindless1 on 7/23/2008 6:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
I feel the solution is a lot simplier, that adults should not be held as criminals if a child claims to be an adult. End of story. If the child is seeking to engage in such things it is not as though their eyeballs are going to bleed by reading similar to what they were already writing themselves, what they were already discussing with underage peers.

I don't mean to suggest this should replace parental supervision, that is something any responsible parent should be doing but not to censor the world from their child, only to make sure the child has a safe, nurturing environment since their time is better spent on other things and some of those sex chatters are predators or at least wouldn't care, might even be drawn to a child who stated they were a minor, so the parent's judgement is essential there.

Arrested for neglect? How far do we take this? Can the parent hear what the school bus driver says? What about the child's peers at school or at extracurricular activies, or friends that play at home? There is only so much a parent can do, and it's not that I feel children shouldn't be monitored but the idea that not monitoring them so strictly in one area of life warrants a neglect arrest seems pretty pointless because it is not as though that is the only way they could come into contact with undesirable, yet mere, words on a computer screen.

Lastly, I caution anyone not to pose as a 13 year old girl in order to see naked children's pictures. That's dancing a very fine line these days. I realize you were just making a point but I don't feel more legislation, arrests of parents who don't parent like you want to, and censoring sexuality really works well. It could tend to backfire, the child may then be more secretive and you then know nothing about what is going on.

Protecting a child is good, but being overly controlling and judging the rest of the world instead of educating your child about these perils is not a universal solution. Maybe reporting those Myspace accounts with children nude would be a better way to clean up what you find objectionable.

Policing the internet should not be about restraining the innocent, but keeping an eye on the guilty.


Am I reading this correctly?
By Diesel Donkey on 7/22/2008 11:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The ACLU lauded the Appellate Court’s 2008 decision as a victory against free speech.


Is this just a typo or is there some deeper meaning that I'm missing there?




Just Do not Get It
By Grast on 7/23/2008 11:05:37 AM , Rating: 2
I do not understand why constituants and represenatives keep waisting their time with this type of censorship. The Internet is NOT required to live out your day. As such in regards to CHILDREN as the excuse is always made, the decision to allow a child free and unmonitored access to the internet is the parents decision.

While I agree that it is annoying that I must setup Web Filters to prevent my child from finding objectionalble material during normal use, it is part of the RISK I accept when my child uses the Internet.

In my opinion, I would rather ensure that my child has the RIGHT to view pornografy BUT prevented by my actions than have the government make laws which restrict everyone's rights.

Later..




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki