Govt resurrecting COPA again
 

Supreme Court decides:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/2001...ourt_dc_1.html

"The Child Online Protection Act, adopted by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1998, would require commercial site operators on the World Wide Web to impose electronic proof-of-age systems before allowing Internet users to view material deemed harmful to minors."

So is this the crux of COPA? Surely there is more to it.

love,


------------------
tit,
writer for:
COZYFROG and EROTICOPY
and BONEPRONE approved!

Nope - that is it.
http://www.aclu.org/court/renovacludec.html

Old Law Struck down 7-2

New law hasn't been upheld by one single judge so far.

Even the two decenting justices - including rehnquist would have struck down the old law too, but they would have only struck it down on one of the grounds:

...The creation of "adult zones" is by no means a novel concept. States have long denied minors access to certain establishments frequented by adults.(1) States have also denied minors access to speech deemed to be "harmful to minors."(2) The Court has previously sustained such zoning laws, but only if they respect the First Amendment rights of adults and minors. That is to say, a zoning law is valid if (i) it does not unduly restrict adult access to the material; and (ii) minors have no First Amendment right to read or view the banned material. As applied to the Internet as it exists in 1997, the "display" provision and some applications of the "indecency transmission" and "specific person" provisions fail to adhere to the first of these limiting principles by restricting adults' access to protected materials in certain circumstances. Unlike the Court, however, I would invalidate the provisions only in those circumstances.

I

Our cases make clear that a "zoning" law is valid only if adults are still able to obtain the regulated speech. If they cannot, the law does more than simply keep children away from speech they have no right to obtain?it interferes with the rights of adults to obtain constitutionally protected speech and effectively "reduce[s] the adult population . . . to reading only what is fit for children." Butler v. Michigan, 352 U. S. 380, 383 (1957)....

I think they will decide since all adults do not have credit cards, and since even those that do are hesitant to use them online - that that creates an unnecessary barrier to free speech and will uphold the lower courts decisions.

Current Case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...case&no=991324

The other case pending - has to do with non minors being made to look like minors - is that illegal? I haven't read that one - but that is my understanding.


------------------
TopBucks.com - Converting at better than 1:130
David Lace Content - Highest Quality Teen Content
ConversionCash.com - Make Money off your WebTV Traffic