COPA struck down
Good news:
Judge strikes down anti-Internet porn law
Of course, this was a federal court and not the Supreme Court, but there's no mention in that article of an appeal.
In summary: The Child Online Protection Act was enacted in 1998 with the purpose of "protecting" minors from online porn. Anyone found guilty of providing access to minors of "harmful material" over the internet could face up to US$50,000 in fines, or six months in prison. (The primary real effect of the law, as far as I can tell, was to encourage the proliferation of "age check" sites--sites which were essentially scams, where you paid a small amount via credit card in order to "verify" your age, being told that by doing so, you'd be given access to a crapload of really hot stuff. I tried one of those once, and found it to be virtually worthless. I don't remember the details anymore, other than that I rushed to cancel my membership as quickly as I could, and I retained as much proof as I could gather that I had, in fact, cancelled it. This would tend to suggest that, not only was the whole thing not worth any money, but that I had gotten the distinct impression of shadiness from the company involved. I don't know--some of those sites might be legit, but in my experience, they're just designed to suck your credit card without giving you anything but crap.)
The law was challenged by the ACLU. The Federal District Court in Philadelphia (Judge Lowell Reed) agreed that the law is too restrictive of free speech, and that other means of restricting access to online porn by minors exist that are less so. The one example given was commercial software filtering. I am not aware of how effective this is, since I have never used it (nor had to circumvent it), but I do know that virtually every American porn site that I've ever seen has some sort of notice on its front page declaring open cooperation with Net Nanny or the like. Pornographers aren't stupid--they know full well how the general public feels about this issue, and know that their best strategy is to voluntarily do what they can to help.
I think the long term reality is that, in another generation or two, the whole issue will be considered kind of silly. But in the short term, this is good news.
Of course, this was a federal court and not the Supreme Court, but there's no mention in that article of an appeal.
In summary: The Child Online Protection Act was enacted in 1998 with the purpose of "protecting" minors from online porn. Anyone found guilty of providing access to minors of "harmful material" over the internet could face up to US$50,000 in fines, or six months in prison. (The primary real effect of the law, as far as I can tell, was to encourage the proliferation of "age check" sites--sites which were essentially scams, where you paid a small amount via credit card in order to "verify" your age, being told that by doing so, you'd be given access to a crapload of really hot stuff. I tried one of those once, and found it to be virtually worthless. I don't remember the details anymore, other than that I rushed to cancel my membership as quickly as I could, and I retained as much proof as I could gather that I had, in fact, cancelled it. This would tend to suggest that, not only was the whole thing not worth any money, but that I had gotten the distinct impression of shadiness from the company involved. I don't know--some of those sites might be legit, but in my experience, they're just designed to suck your credit card without giving you anything but crap.)
The law was challenged by the ACLU. The Federal District Court in Philadelphia (Judge Lowell Reed) agreed that the law is too restrictive of free speech, and that other means of restricting access to online porn by minors exist that are less so. The one example given was commercial software filtering. I am not aware of how effective this is, since I have never used it (nor had to circumvent it), but I do know that virtually every American porn site that I've ever seen has some sort of notice on its front page declaring open cooperation with Net Nanny or the like. Pornographers aren't stupid--they know full well how the general public feels about this issue, and know that their best strategy is to voluntarily do what they can to help.
I think the long term reality is that, in another generation or two, the whole issue will be considered kind of silly. But in the short term, this is good news.
posted by cke at 6:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home