First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
 
Government, Web sites spar over COPA

By The Associated Press
10.24.06

PHILADELPHIA — After years of legal wrangling, Web site publishers and free-speech advocates argued in court yesterday that a law Congress passed to protect children from online pornography was fatally flawed.

Salon.com, Nerve.com and other plaintiffs said the 1998 Child Online Protection Act would likely criminalize legitimate material they publish, from sexual-health information to erotic literature to news photographs of naked prisoners tortured at Abu Ghraib.

The Justice Department argues that it is easier to stop online pornography at the source than to keep children from viewing it, inadvertently or otherwise.

The law, signed by then-President Clinton, requires Web sites to get credit card information or some other proof of age from adults who want to view material that may be considered “harmful to children.” It would impose a $50,000 fine and six-month prison term on commercial Web site operators that allow minors to view such content, which is to be defined by “contemporary community standards.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, argues that filters are a more effective way of policing the Internet. It notes that the law would not regulate any material posted overseas.

The plaintiffs also argued that the term “community standards” is too vague.

“As a parent, I know that what’s fine for my daughter may not be appropriate even for some of her friends,” testified Joan Walsh, editor-in-chief of Salon.com.

Eric Beane, a government attorney, acknowledged that it is tempting to defer to families on the question of what is appropriate for children, but said the patchwork of filters used by parents don’t work.

“The evidence will show that a shocking amount of pornography slips through to children,” Beane said in opening statements.

The nonjury trial in front of Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell A. Reed Jr. opened yesterday and is expected to take about a month.

The 1998 law has yet to be enforced. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice upheld preliminary injunctions that prevented the government from enforcing the law until a trial to determine the act's constitutionality can be held. (See 2002 ruling Ashcroft v. ACLU and 2004 ruling Ashcroft v. ACLU, II.)

The plaintiffs, technology experts and even Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy have expressed concerns that the law has already been surpassed by technology and the growth of the Internet. Kennedy noted, for example, that filters can block Web material posted offshore, but the disputed law cannot control what foreigners post online.

The government “will argue that parents are too stupid to use filters. It’s an insulting argument, and it’s wrong,” ACLU attorney Chris Hansen said in his opening statement.

Nerve.com founder Rufus Griscom said requiring viewers to submit a credit card or jump through other hoops before viewing the site would cut traffic — and advertising revenues — to disastrous levels.

“Based on what I’ve heard today, I think moving overseas would be a possibility,” Griscom testified.

In preparing for its defense of the law, the Justice Department sought internal files from search engine companies and Internet service providers. Google Inc. refused one such subpoena for 1 million sample queries and 1 million Web addresses in its database, although it primarily cited trade secrets, not privacy issues.

A federal judge in California sharply limited the amount of information Google had to surrender.


Update
Study: 1% of Web sites are sexually explicit
Government lawyers introduce report in court as Justice Department seeks to revive Child Online Protection Act. 11.15.06

Previous
Feds subpoena ISPs, tech firms in child online protection case
It is unclear how many of the at least 34 companies — besides Google — are complying, and to what extent. 03.31.06

Related

Too much sex or too much law?

By Paul K. McMasters Protecting kids from porn and smut — without criminalizing protected speech — can be a complicated legal business. 11.19.06

Indecency online

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print


Last system update: Thursday, August 21, 2008 | 17:27:42
 SEARCH  MORE
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
Video/RSS/podcasts
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment
reports

First Reports
Supreme Court
Experts
Columnists
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Glossary
Freedom Sings™
Events
First Amendment
Schools

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment
Library

Lesson plans
freedomforum.org
Newseum
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links