COPA, the so-called “Child Online Protection Act” was declared unconstitutional today.
“Even defendant’s own study shows that all but the worst performing (software) filters are far more effective than COPA would be at protecting children from sexually explicit material on the Web,” said Reed, who presided over a monthlong trial in the fall. ~ U.S. Judge Blocks 1998 Online Porn Law
The problem is, of course, that what’s harmful to minors is a moving target, especially since the courts insistance on “community values” made obscenity as regional as Italian cuisine. Courts are also reluctant to tinker with Miller v. California, since before the ruling they were forced to hear each and every obscenity charge separately.
In any case, the ACLU was delighted, the Morality in Media folks not.
This is odd: In Response to Latest COPA Decision, Morality in Media President Robert Peters Says First Amendment Was Not Intended to Provide a License to Sell Smut Without Any Legal Obligation to Restrict Children’s Access. Odd because selling smut via credit card is a way to deal with age restrictions in itself, rendering COPA useless in any case.
Evidently, at issue is the “fact” (put forth by Peters) that parent are by and large unable to raise children in this day and age. “While this may come as a surprise to some federal court judges, many parents are overburdened and tired. Many are naive. Many don’t want to be overly strict, like their parents were. Many are ‘technologically challenged,’ like me. Many don’t speak English. Many have physical or mental health problems. Some neglect and abuse their own children.”
And instead of working to unburden parents to let them do their jobs, or training them to do it better, it’s best to burden the rest of us with the problem. Somehow, this doesn’t make sense to me.
The pedestrian streets and shopping centers of ancient Rome were awash with carvings of erect penises. Those penises were a good luck symbol 2000 years ago, and people weren’t afraid to display them. It makes sense, since a good, strong, erection is truly a sign of good health.
So how did an erect penis become, 2000 years of technological development later, a sight that’s harmful to minors? What is the connection? Is our willingness to equate ignorance with innocence? The hysteria generated by an exposed nipple? How can even the most explicit picture of ten people having sex in an open field be worse for a child than parents who “neglect and abuse their own children?”
censorship |
child online protection act