** Continued From: Court In Session! - Part #1

Some time this session, the US Supreme Court will hear the case of Ashcroft v. the ACLU.

If you based the case on the names of the parties involved, you might imagine that the head of the Justice Department is actually suing our nation’s foremost civil rights organization. Fortunately, that is not the reality.

Technically, this case -and its appearance before America’s highest court- is the outcome of the granting of a writ of certiorari. The case of Ashcroft v. the ACLU before the United States Supreme Court is the successful result of an appeal by Ashcroft to the decision of a lower court. The US Supreme Court will (for the second time) decide on the constitutionality of COPA.

COPA is the Child Online Protection Act. COPA was signed into law in 1998. Since it became a law COPA has never been enforced. Instead, COPA has been bouncing around the higher court system for the past five years, mostly due to the diligence of the ACLU.

What is this law? Why does the ACLU fight it? Why does the Justice Department fight for its survival? Why is it so important that the Supreme Court is hearing the case of Ashcroft v. the ACLU?

"There are those who believe it is possible to sell without using graphic/offensive pictures or text. The problem is the adult Internet has been using free, explicit content as a primary sales tool."

The Child Online Protection Act is an amendment to section 223 of the 1934 Communications Act. The gist of COPA goes like this: "...to require persons who are engaged in the business of selling or transferring, by means of the World Wide Web, material that is harmful to minors to restrict access to such material by minors".

Sounds pretty simple in a legalese sort of way. Basically, COPA wants to apply age-restricted access to pornographic content on the Internet. That sounds reasonable. Who wants kids hitting a gangbang page? In the US adult businesses are usually housed in remote locations or far separated from residential neighborhoods. One has to provide proof of age when entering such businesses. When it comes to adult entertainment in the physical world, the kids are shut out.

Unfortunately, on the web, it’s pretty impossible to keep the kids out of the smut section. A paysite membership fee stops most tots from seeing the inside of a member’s area. The concern for the sponsors of COPA is the amount of free cybersmut available to anyone who finds it.

The Child Online Protection Act would make it illegal to expose children to materials that would be considered harmful according to the community standards criteria. COPA suggests that violators be sentenced to pay a $50,000 fine, serve six months in jail or both.

Let’s put this in terms all adult webmasters can understand. COPA became law in 1998. The ACLU got the 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to declare an injunction against COPA on the grounds of unconstitutionality. The Justice Department appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sent it back to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals upheld the injunction against COPA. Now Ashcroft has won himself another hearing in front of the US Supreme Court in the hopes of overturning the injunction against COPA.

If the injunction is lifted and COPA becomes enforceable that means no more free sites, no more TGPs, no more MPGs, no more top lists, no more galleries, no more boobies, no more twat shots, no more insertion pics without an ID. If COPA gets its teeth, fuck your Warning page. Fuck your JavaScript prompt. Fuck free fucking pics.

That sounds swell to a lot in our industry. There’s a large faction of site owners who don’t need or want freeloaders, especially kids.

There are those who believe it is possible to sell without using graphic/offensive pictures or text. The problem is the adult Internet has been using free, explicit content as a primary sales tool. The whole affiliate/sponsor model depends on gallery builders and TGP operators, as well as the designers, content providers and hosts subsequently involved. Will TGPs and MGPs survive if all they’re allowed to post are links to G-rated galleries?

Another problem is adult identification. Our industry knows full well that VISA has begun to prohibit the AVS (Adult Verification System) affiliate/sponsor model. VISA has stated they do not want to be used as a proof of age service. According to COPA, there are three ways an adult webmaster can LEGALLY block underage access:

"(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."

Once again, VISA ­for the time being- wants no part of any age verification business. That leaves us with only the pay-to-play option. Of course, AVS always was a pay-to-play option. Digital certificates? How would that work? Maybe there’s hope in “any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology”.

If the Supreme Court decides to lift the injunction against COPA, then the adult Internet would be prohibited from running commercial sites containing content that is harmful to minors, without some entrance filter such as credit card or age verification. That’s why Ashcroft v. the ACLU is important from an adult webmaster’s perspective.

In my next article, I’ll explain why the American Civil Liberties Union and other free speech proponents believe the Child Online Protection Act is unconstitutional.

In the meantime, think about your adult sites, galleries and link lists. Can you remove the smut and still make money? If you have to charge money to stay legal will you be able to do so? Will sponsors still need affiliates? Will affiliates still make galleries? Will AVS be revived from its coma? This and more in the next and final installment of Court in Session.

** Click Here For: Court In Session! - Part #3