> COPA struck down

Rootology

QUOTE

A US federal appeals court today struck down COPA, the Child Online Protection Act, a Clinton-era censorship law that the Justice Department has been struggling to get implemented for a decade. (The ACLU filed suit as soon as COPA was signed in 1998 and won an immediate injunction.) The battle has made it to the Supreme Court twice, and the DoJ has essentially never gotten any satisfaction out of the courts. This was the case for which the DoJ famously went trolling for search histories. In the ruling issued today, the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court ruling that COPA violates the First Amendment because it is not the most effective way to keep children from visiting adult Web sites. The law would require sites to check visitors' ages, e.g. by taking a credit card, if the site contained any material that is "harmful to minors," whatever that means.

This was the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act

GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 4:57pm)

From slashdot:

QUOTE

A US federal appeals court today struck down COPA, the Child Online Protection Act, a Clinton-era censorship law that the Justice Department has been struggling to get implemented for a decade. (The ACLU filed suit as soon as COPA was signed in 1998 and won an immediate injunction.) The battle has made it to the Supreme Court twice, and the DoJ has essentially never gotten any satisfaction out of the courts. This was the case for which the DoJ famously went trolling for search histories. In the ruling issued today, the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court ruling that COPA violates the First Amendment because it is not the most effective way to keep children from visiting adult Web sites. The law would require sites to check visitors' ages, e.g. by taking a credit card, if the site contained any material that is "harmful to minors," whatever that means.

This was the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act

You understand that this applies to COPA (access to porn sites) not COPPA (protects child privacy online,) right? Unless you are an outright porn site this doesn't apply.

Rootology

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 4:07pm)

You understand that this applies to COPA (access to porn sites) not COPPA (protects child privacy online,) right? Unless you are an outright porn site this doesn't apply.

No, I'm aware, that's why I specified it directly. Its something to think about, as it will possibly have an impact in how things are viewed legally in regards to open access to "obscene" material, on sites like WMF projects, Flickr, or other user-built/public facing ventures.

GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Rootology @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 5:25pm)

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Tue 22nd July 2008, 4:07pm)

You understand that this applies to COPA (access to porn sites) not COPPA (protects child privacy online,) right? Unless you are an outright porn site this doesn't apply.

No, I'm aware, that's why I specified it directly. Its something to think about, as it will possibly have an impact in how things are viewed legally in regards to open access to "obscene" material, on sites like WMF projects, Flickr, or other user-built/public facing ventures.

COPA has always been very Constitutionally "troubled." I think there might have been an injunction staying enforcement since it became law. That would mean no change anywhere. I don't know much about COPA but I think it required some age verifying means of identification, like a credit card. I think this might have been complied with by porn sites, even while enjoined, because it fit in nicely with their business model anyways. They could probably now use gift cards and non-verified pre-paid debit cards now without concern they would have to change in the future. Some probably will.

Because WMF, Wikia, Flickr etc don't charge anything anyway I think it will make no difference.

One

Yeah, it was enjoined from enforcement for its whole life.

If they'd only go back and nuke the rest of the CDA. *sigh*