Quote:
Originally Posted by raymor
As I recall COPA is known as CDA II because it was basically Clinton trying to do CDA again after the court already ruled it unconstitutional.
|
Ah, it may be the case that some people have referred to COPA as "CDA II," I've just never heard it positioned that way before.
When I discussed this with the ACLU attorneys who handled the case (I covered
ACLU v. Mukasey for a couple of publications and I'm good friends with one of the expert witnesses called in the case), they used "COPA II" to refer to the second adjudication of COPA, which resulted in the 3rd Circuit holding it to be unconstitutional in 2008, to differentiate it from the 2004 case (
Ashcroft v. ACLU) which resulted in the Supreme Court upholding the injunction issued by the Circuit court.
Since you consider it "Clinton trying to do it again," I have to ask: does the Bush Administration simply get a pass on defending COPA in court, repeatedly?
I don't see being anti-porn as an exclusively Republican, or exclusively Democratic, position. It has been a
bipartisan majority position, unfortunately, where Congress, the White House, the DOJ, various State Assemblies, nearly all County Supervisors, virtually every City Council, etc. etc. are concerned, dating back to the dawn of obscenity prosecutions.
IMO, the ONLY 'ally' the porn industry has in the U.S. government is the Court -- and not because the Court has any sort of favorable view of porn. It is because the Court has an expansive view of the scope of the First Amendment.... as it should, and as is consistent with the last 40 years of case law.
