A prior court ruling labelling the controversial Child Online Protection Act (COPA) as unconstitutional has this week received the support of a federal appeals court in Philadelphia, which also found the contentious 1998 act to be in violation of the First Amendment, which protects the right to free speech and a free press.
Child Online Protection Act hits another hurdle as appeals court finds it unconstitutional. Image: Son of Groucho/Flickr.
The Child Online Protection Act, which was drawn up a decade ago but has never taken effect, would essentially prevent Web sites and services from posting any objectionable content -- sexual or otherwise -- that could be deemed as harmful to children.
According to John Morris, general counsel for civil liberties group the Center for Democracy & Technology , which is campaigning against the act, if COPA was to receive approval it would effectively turn the Web into a strict haven of family-oriented content, based on the notion that it is all-but impossible to fully prevent minors from accessing lawful sites directed at an adult audience.
Issued on Tuesday of this week, the decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia outlined the Child Online Protection Act as unconstitutionally over broad and vague, and in violation of the First Amendment. The court pointed to the common application of modern filtering technologies and other forms of parentally-governed controls that can actively steer children away from inappropriate content when online.
The U.S. Justice Department has said it will review the ruling prior to deciding its next step in the long-running battle to have COPA approved as law. Official spokesman Charles Miller commented that the department is “disappointed” by the appeal court’s decision to cast out a congressional statute “designed to protect our children from exposure to sexually explicit materials on the Internet.”
Various reports suggest that news surrounding the Child Online Protection Act is far from over, and that it could yet return to the U.S. Supreme Court. The act was brought before the Supreme Court back in 2004, at which time an existing ruling of First Amendment violation was upheld.
The Associated Press reports that, following that 2004 judgement, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court system in order to better evaluate if developments in content-blocking software would affect the law constitutionally.
brettcAug 18th, 2008 - 05:29:45
America is already a heavily censored nation, and far, far away from real freedom at all. I could not imagine the average, thinking American citizen to want this. If you want to filter content, do it at the home end, and don't inflict your moral standards onto me (or others). You have the kid, so YOU maintain the standards you want enforced.
Report this comment