The jig is up. The fat lady is about to sing. It’s now or never. You can’t always get what you want but if you try, sometimes, you get what you need.
Nine senior citizens have our fate in their hands and judgement is nigh. They’re probably composing their decisions as I write this. This is the week the US Supreme Court will hand down a final (?) finding on Ashcroft vs the ACLU. Two old ladies and seven old men will make the (probably) conclusive ruling on the constitutionality/legality of COPA, the Child Online Protection Act.
COPA ".provides for civil and criminal penalties for an individual who, or entity that, knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors." - UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT: Case No. 99-1324
This is the second time that the Child Online Protection Act has been before the highest court in America. COPA was originally ruled unconstitutional by the Third Circuit Court. Then COPA went before the Supreme Court. The High Court upheld the injunction against the enforcement of COPA yet sent the case back to the Third Circuit for further review. After review, the Third Circuit, once again, ruled the law unconstitutional on the basis that it limits free adult speech. This recent hearing is the result of a Writ of Certiorari. A Writ of Certiorari is a decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court.
According to the perceptions of the Third Circuit Court:
". material published on the World Wide Web is "harmful to minors" is governed by a three part test, each prong of which must be satisfied before one can be found liable under COPA:
(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
According to the text of COPA:
"(1) Prohibited conduct
Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.
(2) Intentional violations
In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever intentionally violates such paragraph shall be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
(3) Civil penalty
In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1) and (2), whoever violates paragraph (1) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation."
Untitled Page
COPA states defensible protections for site(s) that:
".in good faith, has restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to minors--
(A) by requiring use of a credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number;
(B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age; or
(C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology."
The first time the Supreme Court made a ruling on COPA, it was sort of a non-ruling. They sent the case back to the Third Circuit for additional examination.
The best I can figure is that originally, the Third Circuit declared COPA to be too broad because the Community Standard test applies to actual, physical communities.
The Justice Department said "Oh yeah? Well we’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say about this!"
The High court said "Not broad enough."
The Third Circuit replied "Oh yeah? Well it also violates the free speech rights of adults because the law says nothing about non-commercial/volunteer/hobby sites that educate or inform, so there!"
Then John Ashcroft whined "I want my law!"
This week, our future will be decided. Chances are, this ruling on COPA is the final ruling. The Justices might uphold parts of the law and strike down other portions. The results for us could be good, bad or really bad. Agree or disagree with the Child Online Protection Act, the verdict is out of our hands. Our posterity hinges on the votes of nine men and women.
One of them is a porn fan. Cross fingers.
** Click Here For: COPA Decision - It's Not Over!